Sat’s lawyers write CoP Griffith

ATTORNEYS representing Central Broadcasting Services Limited and secretary general of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha Satnarayan Maharaj have written to Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith again asking for a copy of the search warrant police said they relied on to search the group’s offices at Pasea, Tunapuna, last month.

“Unfortunately to date we have not received a response to our previous correspondence nor has your office taken any stems to have a copy of the purported warrant disclosed to us,” attorney Stefan Ramkisson said in the letter delivered to the commissioner yesterday.

Ramkisson said it was troubling that the police were “now unable and/or unwilling” to produce a copy of the warrant.

He said the issue concerned the preservation and promotion of the rule of law and the failure to produce the warrant “suggests that the TTPS had no legitimate and/or lawful authority to search our client’s premises and was acting illegally when it raided our clients ‘premises,” he said. He added that given the publicity the matter has attracted, the unwillingness by the police to produce the document will “no doubt” lead to a loss of confidence in the police by the public. Ramkisson said there was “simply no good reason” why a copy of the purported warrant cannot be produced and disclosed to CBS’ and Maharaj’s lawyers. Ramkisson again warned of possible legal action.

However, in an earlier letter to Ramkisson, dated April 28, in response to an earlier request for the warrant, Christian Chandler, director of Legal Services with the police, told him it was up to his clients to “prove not only that the police had no reasonable or probable cause to seek the warrant, but also, that they had an improper motive for obtaining the warrant.”

He said the police had in their possession at the time a “legitimate search warrant,” sought under section 13 of the Sedition Act, and their search was in line with their investigation.

“It is thus vehemently denied, that the officers acted in a high handed manner and refused to particularise the warrant to your client, as the warrant was showed and read to agents of your client and the police officers would have no difficulty adducing such evidence,” Chandler said.