JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, February 23, 2025

PM, AG on Email­gate counter-at­tack:

Joan out of line

by

20150518

Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar last night called on Deputy Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions Joan Hon­ore-Paul to step aside in the Email­gate mat­ter over a state­ment she made on the is­sue last week.

Her com­ments came hours af­ter At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Garvin Nicholas ex­pressed his dis­ap­point­ment and con­cern over Hon­ore-Paul's judg­ment last week in crit­i­cis­ing Per­sad-Bisses­sar for sug­gest­ing that she and her col­leagues had been cleared in the probe when the case was still open.

Dur­ing a cot­tage meet­ing in Tu­na­puna yes­ter­day, Per­sad-Bisses­sar said she had asked her lawyers to pe­ruse the deputy DPP's state­ment and they would now call on her to re­cuse her­self from the mat­ter since she had demon­strat­ed a clear bias.

She said her lawyers had al­so ad­vised her that Hon­ore-Paul had tres­passed on the con­sti­tu­tion­al re­mit of the Po­lice Ser­vice and the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

Ear­li­er, in a strong­ly word­ed re­sponse, Nicholas ap­pealed to Hon­ore-Paul to main­tain the in­de­pen­dence of the Of­fice of the DPP, say­ing the PM was well with­in her right to de­fend her name in the mat­ter.

He said he was trou­bled by the tenor of Hon­ore-Paul's com­ments, par­tic­u­lar­ly her state­ment that "no man should be a judge in his own cause," as this could leave a rea­son­able read­er with the per­cep­tion that there was in­deed a case to be an­swered be­fore the courts.

"This is of par­tic­u­lar con­cern giv­en, as you have said, that the in­ves­ti­ga­tions are not yet com­plete. You would no doubt agree that this would im­pact up­on pub­lic per­cep­tion of the in­de­pen­dence and com­pe­tence of the of­fice of the DPP," Nicholas wrote.

He al­so ex­pressed con­cern that Hon­ore-Paul's re­sponse was made avail­able to the me­dia pri­or to her com­mu­ni­cat­ing any of her con­cerns to him.

Point­ing out that while she tele­phoned him at 6.55 pm on May 13 in­form­ing him a copy of her let­ter would be faxed to his of­fice, which she sub­se­quent­ly did (but which he saw on­ly the next day), so­cial me­dia sites were re­port­ing its con­tents from 6 pm that said day.

Nicholas told Hon­ore-Paul that since he had as­sumed of­fice he had main­tained a very cor­dial and pro­fes­sion­al work­ing re­la­tion­ship with the DPP's of­fice as line min­is­ter.

He said he had a num­ber of meet­ings with DPP Roger Gas­pard to dis­cuss a range of is­sues, es­pe­cial­ly those re­lat­ed to in­creas­ing the ef­fi­cien­cy of the of­fice and the wel­fare of the staff.

Gas­pard had ear­li­er re­cused him­self from pre­sid­ing over the mat­ter be­cause he was named in the emails.

Nicholas said yes­ter­day at no time dur­ing those meet­ings was he ap­proached ei­ther by the DPP or Hon­ore-Paul to dis­cuss the is­sue ref­er­enced.

"As such, you would no doubt un­der­stand my dis­ap­point­ment and con­cern for your judg­ment, as a se­nior pub­lic of­fi­cer, in tak­ing your con­cerns to the me­dia be­fore first ad­dress­ing these con­cerns di­rect­ly with me," he said.

Hon­ore-Paul's let­ter, is­sued last Wednes­day, slammed the PM's haste to clear her­self and for­mer AG Anand Ram­lo­gan in the Email­gate mat­ter first raised in the Par­lia­ment by Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley in 2013 and which has be­come sub­ject of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion by the lo­cal po­lice and the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

Hon­ore-Paul had not­ed the use of in­for­ma­tion pro­vid­ed to the lo­cal po­lice by the Unit­ed States De­part­ment of Jus­tice in de­fence of the al­le­ga­tions, say­ing it was un­for­tu­nate this in­for­ma­tion was be­ing made pub­lic.

She cau­tioned that par­al­lel in­ves­ti­ga­tions and the pub­lic air­ing of the sup­posed re­sults were pal­pa­bly self serv­ing and sug­gest­ed no man should be a judge in his own cause.

But Nicholas re­mind­ed her that no crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions had been in­sti­tut­ed against any of the in­di­vid­u­als con­cerned in the email dis­clo­sures.

"These mat­ters are still with­in the in­ves­ti­ga­to­ry realm of the Po­lice Ser­vice. The rep­u­ta­tion of those per­sons have been called in­to ques­tion and it is en­tire­ly open to them to seek pub­licly swift vin­di­ca­tion. You are re­mind­ed that this in­ves­ti­ga­tion was ini­ti­at­ed by the Prime Min­is­ter for this very rea­son."

He sug­gest­ed that no or­gan of the State, in­clud­ing the DPP's of­fice, ought to dis­cour­age or in any way threat­en the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly pro­tect­ed right to free­dom of ex­pres­sion with­out law­ful jus­ti­fi­ca­tion.

"I con­sid­er it my du­ty to re­spect­ful­ly re­mind you to op­er­ate with­in your con­sti­tu­tion­al purview to en­sure that the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of ac­cused per­sons are not threat­ened by your state­ments or ac­tion," he stat­ed.

Fun­da­men­tal rights

In his de­fence of the Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar's use of the con­tents of con­fi­den­tial po­lice re­ports from the US De­part­ment of Jus­tice to lo­cal po­lice, which Hon­ore-Paul said should not have been made pub­lic, the AG said her con­cerns were not­ed.

"Let me make it clear that your con­cerns with re­gard to the cor­re­spon­dence from the US De­part­ment of Jus­tice find­ing its way in­to the pub­lic do­main are not­ed, es­pe­cial­ly giv­en the fact that the Cen­tral Au­thor­i­ty re­tains no copies of doc­u­ments fur­nished by for­eign law en­force­ment agen­cies and sim­ply for­wards same to the rel­e­vant au­thor­i­ties, in this case, the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice and the Of­fice of the DPP."

He called on her to main­tain the in­de­pen­dence of the DPP's of­fice and pre­serve the in­tegri­ty of the crim­i­nal jus­tic process in re­la­tion to the in­ves­ti­ga­tions by ex­er­cis­ing care­ful con­sid­er­a­tion be­fore mak­ing any oth­er pub­lic state­ment which may have the ten­den­cy to prej­u­dice peo­ple ac­cused of crim­i­nal con­duct.

"He al­so asked her to bear in mind that those peo­ple en­joy the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence and the safe­guards to pro­tect their fun­da­men­tal rights as guar­an­teed by the Con­sti­tu­tion.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored