Prime Minister rubbishes meeting Bliss, President on Commissioner of Police

THE Prime Minister is once again denying that he was party to a three-way meeting with President Paula-Mae Weekes and former chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC) Bliss Seepersad in relation to the order of merit list for the commissioner of police.

In his Facebook post on Tuesday, Dr Rowley responded to attorney Larry Lalla, one of the attorneys who represented former police commissioner Gary Griffith when he sued the PSC after he was suspended from acting in the position after his contract had ended.

Lalla, on his Facebook page on Tuesday, posted a video with the caption, “PM ah shame for yuh!”

The 23-second video is a clip of Rowley at a media conference on October 16 last year saying he categorically denied that he had anything to do with the President and the PSC and the action taken by the PSC to withdraw the merit list.

The video ends with a newspaper headline “It was me” referring to an article in which Rowley was reported as admitting he met with Seepersad at President’s House and gave her information about an investigation into Griffith's issuing of firearm users licences (FULS).

The issue was first raised by the Opposition which claimed that a “high-ranking” government official had a meeting with Weekes and Seepersad during which the merit list, with Griffith’s name on it, was given to Weekes but was rescinded by Seepersad immediately after.

The ensuing controversy led to the collapse of the PSC and the process had to be started afresh under a new commission.

Reached for comment on on Tuesday, Seepersad told Newsday: “I have said nothing so far, and I have nothing to add,” before ending the call.

Lalla had also posted on Monday, “Did our Prime Minister commit a crime when he worked with the chairman of the POLSC (Police Service Commission) and the President of the Republic to undermine our Constitution?”

Rowley asks questions

In response on Tuesday, Rowley said to Lalla in his Facebook post: “So you make it that by my passing information to the PSC automatically means that I was (1) in a meeting with those two officers, President and chairman? (2) that the President must be involved and is a party to anything I did with the chairman? (3) that I spoke with the chairman about the PSC merit list? (4) that I advised her to withdraw such a list? (5) that I saw or was made to know what the merit list contained? (6) that I only shared that pertinent information with the commission in some connection with the merit list? (7) I should not be alarmed about the explosive information emanating from the Firearms Department and, even if I was alarmed, that was not a good time to alert the PSC?

“Well, you are free to have your speculations but feel no shame for me. The only thing that comforts me is that you are not my lawyer. Clearly in your world, facts and logic don’t matter, what matters is any foolish cause you choose to associate with.”

Rowley also challenged Lalla to identify an instance where he denied that he gave information to the PSC by communicating with Seepersad.

“Check your facts! Actually, I went as far as to say that I see it as my duty so to do. I even went further and pointed out that I am the only Cabinet member required to visit President's House in furtherance of duty, and that I will share any pertinent information with any service commission.”

He said what he denied were the conspiracy theories by some who “wanted to enjoy a bacchanal.”

As an example, he said he has denied that he was in any meeting with Seepersad and Weekes, and that he had any conversation or gave any instructions to anyone about the merit list.

“These inconvenient facts must be very frustrating to the conspiracy theorists who long for a ‘constitutional crisis,’ but are at pains to locate this wishlist except lost in a meaningless sea of “ifs.”

Lalla: Statement does not exonerate him

Lalla told Newsday Rowley’s statement does not exonerate him and the others, and believes there is a case for the three to answer.

He said Rowley’s public statements that he met with Seepersad at President’s House implied that the meeting caused the withdrawal of the merit list and that inference means all three were participants "in an effective breach of the constitution."

"The PM for involving himself in the working of the independent PSC, the chair of the PSC in withdrawing the merit list after it had been submitted, and the President in allowing it to be withdrawn after it had been deposited with her.

“It is a very serious situation and reflects extremely negatively and disturbingly on all three senior office holders of this country. I will dare say it warrants intervention by the police to determine whether a chargeable case is made out for misbehaviour in public office."

On Monday, Opposition Senator David Nakhid and Griffith both wrote to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard calling on him to investigate Rowley and the police service respectively in relation to the withdrawal of the merit list.

On Tuesday, Gaspard confirmed he received the letters, but said nothing more.

However, Senior Counsel Sophia Chote reiterated that the DPP does not have the powers to investigate any matter.

“My understanding of it is that, generally speaking, investigations into criminal matters or allegations of criminal conduct are investigated by the police service under the authority of the Commissioner of Police.

“The role of the DPP is to advise on those investigations when requested and to make recommendations.”

She also said there is no need for any special committee to investigate a sitting PM. She said any such investigation should be done by someone from the police service who has expertise in investigating the alleged offence.

DPP’s powers

Section 90 of the Constitution says: “The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power in any case in which he considers it proper to do so— (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any Court in respect of any offence against the law of Trinidad and Tobago; (b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other person or authority; to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or any other person or authority.”