Gail Alexan­der

At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan filed a suit in the US courts against Google in June 2013 to as­cer­tain the truth be­hind the May 2013 E-mail­gate scan­dal which the Peo­ple's Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) raised, be­cause he had sus­pi­cions about the meet­ing be­tween PNM leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley and In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion chair­man Ken Gor­don days be­fore E-mail­gate broke.An­oth­er US at­tor­ney on Mon­day un­der­took ac­tion in the Unit­ed States on be­half of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion to or­der Google to pro­vide in­for­ma­tion to aid in the in­ves­ti­ga­tions.

E-mail­gate was raised when Row­ley dis­played sev­er­al e-mails un­der cov­er of par­lia­men­tary priv­i­lege and al­leged top gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials had been in­volved in a con­spir­a­cy. He called on the com­mis­sion to in­ves­ti­gate the mat­ter.

Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar and her col­leagues de­nied any in­volve­ment in the al­leged con­spir­a­cy but the PM or­dered Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice Stephen Williams to probe the mat­ter.

Gor­don sub­se­quent­ly con­firmed he host­ed a pri­vate meet­ing with Row­ley at his Glen­coe home on May 15, days be­fore Row­ley in Par­lia­ment called on the com­mis­sion to probe the pur­port­ed e-mails.

Ram­lo­gan hired a US com­put­er law spe­cial­ist firm a month af­ter the E-mail­gate is­sue to take ac­tion with Google to delve in­to the mat­ter.On the com­mis­sion's le­gal ac­tion in the US this week, Ram­lo­gan said yes­ter­day:"Why did they take so long? What's the rea­son for the un­ex­plained in­or­di­nate de­lay in tak­ing what was an ob­vi­ous first step?"Af­ter the is­sue arose I was forced to take ac­tion, as I was con­cerned about the se­cret meet­ing that oc­curred be­tween Row­ley and the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion chair­man, and I pub­licly voiced con­cerns."My sus­pi­cions were about po­lit­i­cal con­spir­a­cy and I was con­cerned the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion would not im­me­di­ate­ly sue Google for the lat­ter to pro­tect and pre­serve the in­for­ma­tion of our e-mail ac­counts."

Ram­lo­gan said he was con­cerned that if the com­mis­sion took too long to sue Google, "Google could say it was no longer pos­si­ble to re­trieve re­quest­ed in­for­ma­tion on our ac­counts, as they on­ly re­tain in­for­ma­tion for a 12-month pe­ri­od."If that was the case, the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion and oth­er au­thor­i­ties could have in­di­cat­ed their find­ings were in­con­clu­sive and they were un­able to say if the e-mails were in fact sent out, and that would have left a lin­ger­ing cloud of sus­pi­cion over­head and Dr Row­ley would have used it in the elec­tion cam­paign to say we can­not be trust­ed. I took ac­tion and sued Google my­self since then."

On the com­mis­sion's re­cent move to go af­ter Google, Ram­lo­gan said it led him to won­der if his sus­pi­cions were cor­rect in the first place, "and if there was in­deed more in the mor­tar than the pes­tle. "I there­fore re­main very scep­ti­cal and sus­pi­cious about that se­cret meet­ing that oc­curred."

Those named in E-mail­gate scan­dal

Prime Min­is­ter

At­tor­ney Gen­er­al

Hous­ing Min­is­ter Dr Roodal Mooni­lal

Works Min­is­ter Dr Su­ruj Ram­bachan

Gary Grif­fith, Then na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty ad­vis­er to the PM and now Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter

E-mail­gate con­spir­a­cy

The e-mails re­port­ed­ly con­cerned plots to:

�2 Plant elec­tron­ic spy de­vices in the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP).

�2 Of­fer the DPP a judge­ship.

�2 Ac­cept pay­ment in ex­change for the free­dom of peo­ple set to ben­e­fit from the Sec­tion 34 fi­as­co in Sep­tem­ber 2012.

�2 Harm an in­ves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist, Denyse Renne, who at that time worked for the T&T Guardian.