Bavi­ta Gopaulchan

A for­mer Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PolSC) chair­man says it is not un­usu­al for a Prime Min­is­ter to meet with mem­bers of the com­mis­sion’s board.

“As chair­man, I did meet with the Prime Min­is­ter in 2011 when I was first ap­point­ed,” Pro­fes­sor Ramesh De­osaran said yes­ter­day.

He told Guardian Me­dia that he and oth­er mem­bers of the PolSC dis­cussed a num­ber of is­sues with the then Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar.

“The com­mis­sion can­not live in an iso­lat­ed en­vi­ron­ment. It has to share and be fact-find­er as well, and if that means to ex­e­cute its pur­pose it has to meet with the Prime Min­is­ter, who is re­spon­si­ble for the Par­lia­ment and the pub­lic’s safe­ty through polic­ing, then that’s a jus­ti­fi­able rea­son to do so,” he ex­plained.

How­ev­er, in the case of Dr Kei­th Row­ley meet­ing with for­mer PolSC chair­man Bliss Seep­er­sad to share in­for­ma­tion about Gary Grif­fith, De­osaran said it’s hard to say whether he over­stepped since no­body knows what was pre­sent­ed to Seep­er­sad by the PM.

“In­flu­enc­ing the de­ci­sion of the PolSC is far dif­fer­ent from trans­mit­ting in­for­ma­tion that is rel­e­vant to the PolSC’s pur­pose,” De­osaran said.

De­osaran said he had not­ed the con­cerns in the pub­lic do­main about the way the Prime Min­is­ter trans­mit­ted the in­for­ma­tion and the sug­ges­tion that Dr Row­ley should have pre­sent­ed it to the Par­lia­ment in­stead.

How­ev­er, De­osaran not­ed that the per­son who the al­le­ga­tions were be­ing made against would not have been giv­en the op­por­tu­ni­ty to de­fend his or her name in the Par­lia­ment.

“If the in­for­ma­tion is giv­en be­fore­hand to the com­mis­sion, this could help fi­nalise its list,” he stat­ed.

How­ev­er, Se­nior Coun­sel Avory Sinanan holds a slight­ly dif­fer­ent view.

He be­lieves Dr Row­ley could have pre­sent­ed his ev­i­dence to the Par­lia­ment dur­ing the mer­it list de­bate.

“When it gets there, any Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment or the Prime Min­is­ter could raise ob­jec­tions and say, ‘look, file a mo­tion. I have cer­tain ob­jec­tions to this can­di­date and these are my ob­jec­tions which are then vot­ed up­on’,” Sinanan said.

He added that by al­so in­form­ing the PolSC of any al­le­ga­tions, the com­mis­sion would have done its due dili­gence be­fore sub­mit­ting any list.

The Se­nior Coun­sel al­so be­lieves that Dr Row­ley should apol­o­gise to cit­i­zens.

“I am cer­tain he would en­dure him­self to the pop­u­la­tion and all con­cerned. Tell them, ‘my en­thu­si­asm to car­ry out prop­er gov­er­nance was in the in­ter­est of the coun­try and I do apol­o­gise and I do be­lieve I should have adopt­ed an of­fi­cial com­mu­ni­ca­tion be­fore­hand to the PolSC or raise the mat­ter when the mer­it list was placed be­fore the Par­lia­ment,’” Sinanan sug­gest­ed.

He not­ed that un­less a thor­ough in­ves­ti­ga­tion is done by the Po­lice Ser­vice, there is no way of con­firm­ing Row­ley’s ac­tions con­sti­tut­ed mis­be­hav­iour in pub­lic of­fice.

CLICK FOR MORE NEWS