Tweet

Legal Community Stunned by Bizarre Twist in Prest Appeal Case

Basseterre, St. Kitts (April 11, 2025) – In a dramatic legal twist that has left senior jurists and political observers stunned, the Attorney General’s Chambers is facing scrutiny for what critics are calling an unprecedented and embarrassing contradiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) position in a recent high-profile case.

The government this week boasted of a “victory” at the Court of Appeal in the Michael Prest v Magistrate District “C” matter. But behind the headlines lies a troubling revelation: representatives of the Attorney General’s office—who, by law, do not conduct criminal matters—reportedly argued against the official position advanced by the DPP, who holds constitutional authority over criminal prosecutions.

Adding to the controversy, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, a regional legal powerhouse with over 50 appearances before the Privy Council—and the youngest to ever do so from Trinidad and Tobago at age 22—was retained to represent the DPP. In formal correspondence dated September 25, 2024, Ramlogan SC stated his clear position not to oppose the Petition for Leave to Appeal to His Majesty’s Privy Council, citing the public significance of the case.

Yet, during the actual Court of Appeal proceedings, legal counsel acting on behalf of the government took an opposing position, leading to a ruling in their favor—effectively overruling the very Senior Counsel they had retained.

---

“Who is really running criminal prosecutions?”

Legal minds across the region are now asking: Why retain one of the Caribbean’s most distinguished legal minds only to argue against him in court?

Critics say the optics are troubling and raise concerns about possible attempts to undermine the DPP’s independence and embarrass Senior Counsel Ramlogan.

The contradiction is even more glaring when examined alongside a Remote Hearing Form submitted by DPP’s legal team, led by Leon Charles, which explicitly noted that Ramlogan SC was unavailable to attend the Court of Appeal hearing due to his scheduled appearance before the Privy Council from November 11–13, 2024.

This raises a compelling question: Would the same argument have been made if Senior Counsel Ramlogan had been present to respond in court?

---

Privy Council Still on the Table

Legal analysts emphasize that the matter is far from over. The Court of Appeal’s dismissal does not prevent the filing of a direct petition to the Privy Council. With the DPP’s position unchanged, and Ramlogan SC still engaged, all eyes are now on whether the government’s legal representatives will follow through and defend their stance before the five Law Lords and Ladies in London.

Another looming question: Will Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan be removed from the matter—and if so, will the DPP accept such an intrusion into his constitutional remit?

---

A Brewing Legal and Political Storm

This unprecedented divergence between the DPP and the Attorney General’s legal team has now burst into the public domain, raising serious questions about the independence of prosecutorial decisions in the Federation.

Constitutional experts are warning that any further interference may set a dangerous precedent, eroding public trust in the justice system and blurring the lines between political influence and legal authority.

As the controversy deepens, one thing is certain: this is no routine legal dispute. It may go down as a defining test of the separation of powers in criminal justice within the Federation.

And the final word? That may come not from Basseterre—but from London, before the Privy Council.

---

Editor’s Note: This article was contributed and reflects the views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views or editorial position of the publisher.