Attorneys Volney, Lalla differ on AG Armour

The content originally appeared on: Trinidad and Tobago Newsday

Former judge and People’s Partnership minister Herbert Volney. –

TWO attorneys, one a former High Court judge and the other a temporary judge, have given differing views on whether or not Attorney General Reginald Armour should resign or be fired by the Prime Minister regarding his disqualification in the almost two-decade-old Piarco Airport corruption case in a Miami court.

Former judge and People’s Partnership government minister Herbert Volney is standing firm with Armour, saying the AG simply made an error in an affidavit to a US judge.

Former temporary judge Larry Lalla disagrees, saying Armour’s latest statement did not exonerate him but rather proffered a defence for his actions.

“People who hold public office are human. They can fall into error and often do. In this instance, I have no reason to doubt that the AG, while on holiday in Europe, had done as he said, without his files. To err is human and to forgive is divine,” Volney told Newsday when contacted for comment on Tuesday.

Volney said the AG recalling what he once forgot, was par for the course, given that the matter is almost two-decades old.

“It is idle argument to say it was done on purpose. I have no reason to doubt the AG. He gave a proper and sincere explanation. Politics is adversarial and not because a man is in politics means I must have no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Attorney Larry Lalla. –

Lalla, when contacted, said Reginald’s latest statement did not help his case.

“It’s unacceptable and he has to step down from office! It is highly unlikely, extremely unbelievable and the stuff that flying pigs are made out of, when an Attorney General and a Senior Counsel to boot, is able to say with a straight face, he cannot recall the nature of his role in the highest profile matter that this country has seen in a long time,” Lalla said.

He added that the AG’s latest statement does not exonerate him but presents a defence, which he opined, is not a believable one.

“Assuming, for argument’s sake, that he could not properly recall his role in the matter so many years ago; he should have refrained from giving the affidavit at the time that he did and should have asked for an opportunity to check his files,” Lalla said.