Missing report on missing file

IF IT IS true that a file in relation to a million-dollar malicious prosecution lawsuit brought against the State by nine accused murderers went missing, it seems also true that all semblance of accountability in relation to this matter has vanished.

“I am not going to make the report public,” insisted Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, in the Senate on September 9.

He was referring to the unreleased findings of retired justice of appeal Stanley John and former ACP Pamela Schullera-Hinds. They were commissioned by the State to probe what led to the failure to enter a defence in the civil case brought by the men accused of killing Vindra Naipaul-Coolman.

“I am not going to be distracted by the media or the Opposition going after named persons in that report if I were to make it public,” the AG audaciously said.

This is a complete reversal for a public official who, in February 2023, hosted a hastily called press conference after the court initially awarded damages totalling $20 million to the claimants.

It was Mr Armour, and not the media, who at that theatrical briefing presided over an unconvincing narrative in which the file in the case possibly “was caused to be disappeared,” who described the situation as an “outrage,” and who said the facts were potentially “sinister.”

“The public is owed an explanation,” he declaimed back then. “I give to the public of TT the full assurance that as soon as I have had the results of the investigation which I have ordered, I will be accounting further to the citizenry in a full and transparent manner.”

What is full and transparent now is that Mr Armour seems more concerned with protecting unnamed individuals or unspecified systems from scrutiny and, incredibly, believes it appropriate to suppress the report, notwithstanding its $500,000 price tag.

Too many questions are left.

What happened to the paperwork served on the Solicitor General’s Office on June 22, 2020?

What happened leading up to and after a later notice of default judgement?

Will there be charges – disciplinary or criminal – in relation to this matter?

On Monday, the AG suggested not, saying: “There are very serious remarks made in the report – the language that is used is that they are grave but don’t amount to justiciable material.”

He also said: “I prefer to look to the future, not to go after named individuals, but rather to see how we can fix the institution.”

Without the full facts, Mr Armour’s various positions leave one to presume this was not necessarily a case of dastardly activity, but, more plausibly, incompetence facilitated by long-standing systemic failings.

But of course, if so, that is something the country deserves to know too, even if many have suspected it all along.