By Sue-Ann Wayow
FORMER Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith has written to Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Roger Gaspard asking for accountability and transparency into the investigations surrounding the removal of the merit list for Commissioner of Police.
The letter was sent to the DPP on Monday, the same day that it was published in the Express newspaper that Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley has finally revealed that he was the high-ranking official who met with former chairman of the Police Service Commission (PolSC) at the President’s House and provided her with information concerning Griffith who at the time held the post of Police Commissioner.
The Opposition members had repeatedly called for Dr Rowley to name the official who they said interfered in the process that was supposed to be independent.
The letter was titled, “Failure of TTPS to launch transparent investigations surrounding removal of merit list for Commissioner of Police.”
A copy of the letter was also sent to Director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and Chairman of the PolSC.
In his letter, Griffith said months after the PolSC imbroglio that saw the resignation of all four members at the time, investigations have not been launched and this seemed to be a possible blatant cover-up.
Mentioning E-mail Gate, he said that was thoroughly investigated by TTPS then, as it was deemed a matter of public importance and national interest of alleged criminal activity by persons in high office even without any evidence.
Griffith stated, “The difference in this matter, however, is that there is concrete information and documentation that improper behaviour did take place, involving several issues of wrongdoing.”
He listed nine areas of concern. They are:
1. Whether the PSC had the authority to ignite an investigation, and hire someone to investigate matters within the TTPS.
2. Ministers in the National Security Council received a report from Mr (Arthur) Barrington of alleged criminal activity. This report was then given from someone in the NSC to the media [ Express newspaper]. Whoever forwarded this report, by forwarding it to the media, would have then tipped off possible suspects and under the Proceed of Crime Act, would have broken the law.
3. Ministers in the National Security Council received a report from Mr Stanley John, who decided to forward a report that he drafted for the PSC, but in a curious manner, also sent it to the NSC. This report was then given from someone in the NSC to the media [ Express newspaper]. Whoever forwarded this report, by forwarding it to the media, would have tipped off possible suspects and under Proceed of Crime Act [ POCA], would have broken the law.
4. The report from Mr Barrington is reported to involve accusations of possible criminal activity. Mr. Barrington should then be interviewed and forward such evidence to the Police. If his report and accusations are false, he should be charged for wasting police time and making a false report, but it is alarming that to the best of my knowledge, he conveniently has submitted this to politicians and refused to report it to the Police.
5. The report from Mr Stanley John is reported to involve accusations of possible criminal activity. Mr. John should then be interviewed and forward such evidence to the Police. If his report and accusations are false, he can be charged for wasting Police time and making a false report.
6. The President, by law, when she received the Merit List, was obligated to do nothing other than forward it to Parliament. She refused to do so. If she was influenced, intimidated or instructed by anyone to do other than what was law, that public official can be charged for misbehavior in office.
7. The previous PSC Chairman rescinded the Merit List from the President after delivering it. There was nothing giving her authority to seek to rescind this Merit List after it was delivered. If any public official ordered, directed, interfered, influenced, or coerced the previous PSC Chairman to rescind the Merit List, then that public official can be charged for misbehavior in office. We are now seeing that the Prime Minister has openly admitted in interfering with an independent process from an independent body, whether it be influencing, intimidating, directing or coercing, it means that he interfered, which can lead to someone being charged. This must be grounds for an investigation.
8. The previous PSC Chairman attempted and suspended a sitting Police Commissioner without approval from the PSC. She informed them that I was interfering with an investigation. Mr Stanley John however submitted correspondence to state that this was a lie. This can amount to misbehaviour in office and even sedition.
9. The previous PSC Chairman refused to reinsert me even when told to do so by the majority of the PSC members. This too can amount to misbehaviour in office.
Griffth stated, “These are not difficult investigations, as all it takes is to interview the previous members of the PSC, Mr John, Mr Barrington and members of the NSC, along with acquiring minutes from NSC meetings. However, several months later, nothing has been done and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to cover up possible criminal activity by persons in high office. I seek your intervention and consideration as to the next steps in ensuring accountability.”
