The cur­rent in­ves­ti­ga­tion con­cern­ing St Au­gus­tine res­i­dent Joshua Sama­roo, who was killed in a po­lice-in­volved shoot­ing, is “one of the most in­tense in­ves­ti­ga­tions” en­gag­ing the po­lice’s at­ten­tion, says Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Roger Alexan­der.

How­ev­er, he de­clined to an­swer ques­tions on the is­sue in Par­lia­ment yes­ter­day, in­vok­ing the Stand­ing Or­der 27 1g - on pub­lic in­ter­est im­mu­ni­ty - to re­main mum when Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) whip Mar­vin Gon­za­les raised queries on the is­sue.

Gon­za­les first asked Alexan­der what im­me­di­ate steps are be­ing tak­en to en­sure a trans­par­ent in­ves­ti­ga­tion in the Jan­u­ary 20th po­lice in­ci­dent where Sama­roo was killed and his wife Ka­ia Sealy was left paral­ysed. Gon­za­les not­ed CCTV footage ap­peared to show Sama­roo sur­ren­der­ing to po­lice.

Alexan­der, in re­ply­ing, be­gan, “Those on the oth­er (PNM) side pro­fess to be very bright, how­ev­er, let me say this -this is a very ...”

House Speak­er Jagdeo Singh in­ter­ject­ed to Alexan­der, “Just an­swer the ques­tion!”

Alexan­der con­tin­ued,” This is an on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion by law en­force­ment. As a re­sult of that - ‘S.O. 27 1g”

The “SO 27 1g” Alexan­der cit­ed refers to Par­lia­ment’s Stand­ing Or­der 27 1g. This al­lows a min­is­ter to de­cline to an­swer a ques­tion if they be­lieve the de­liv­ery of the an­swer would be con­trary to the pub­lic in­ter­est. Gon­za­les said hav­ing re­gard to the fact that Alexan­der con­firmed an in­ves­ti­ga­tion has start­ed, “…the ques­tion to him is what promise his of­fice is be­ing giv­en to en­sure a full and trans­par­ent in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to this very im­por­tant mat­ter.” Gon­za­les be­gan stat­ing that Alexan­der had raised Stand­ing Or­der 27 1 in or­der not to ac­count to the peo­ple on his min­is­te­r­i­al re­spon­si­bil­i­ties.

He was halt­ed by Singh, who said Gon­za­les was a lawyer of 15 years and must know how pub­lic in­ter­est im­mu­ni­ty - which the SO gov­erns - worked. Singh said once that was in­volved, he didn’t have the mech­a­nisms or ju­ris­dic­tion to ex­am­ine an in­vo­ca­tion of this pub­lic in­ter­est im­mu­ni­ty rule.

Alexan­der al­so in­voked SO 27 1g when Gon­za­les asked him what as­sis­tance was be­ing pro­vid­ed to the im­me­di­ate fam­i­ly of Sama­roo and Sealy

Alexan­der an­swered, “This mat­ter is un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion at this time, one of the most in­tense in­ves­ti­ga­tions that is steer­ing (sic) the po­lice at­ten­tion at this time. As a re­sult of that, I in­voke SO 27 1g.”

Gon­za­les said Alexan­der was re­spond­ing to his ques­tion and in the mid­dle of it was in­vok­ing SO 27 1g not to re­spond.

“So, he has to take a po­si­tion - is he go­ing to an­swer the ques­tion or in­voke the Stand­ing Or­der not to an­swer the ques­tion?” he added.

Speak­er Singh not­ed that ul­ti­mate­ly, Alexan­der had in­voked the pub­lic in­ter­est im­mu­ni­ty Stand­ing Or­der. Queries end­ed there.