Blogger seeking information told PM not aware of FUL messages

The Prime Minister is not aware of any WhatsApp communication between himself, the National Security Minister, and any of the police commissioners from 2020 to 2024 concerning firearm user's licences.

This was the response of attorneys for the Prime Minister and the Office of the Prime Minister to a freedom of information request by social activist and blogger Vishal Persad for the messages.

Attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan of JurisX Chambers wrote to Dr Rowley, National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds and Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher on July 18 on behalf of Persad.

He has since received responses from attorneys for the Prime Minister, the Police Commissioner and the permanent secretary of the Ministry of National Security.

Attorney Sonnel David-Longe, for the Prime Minister, said, “After a thorough and diligent search none of the requested WhatsApp messages can be located.

“Further, the Prime Minister is not aware of any such messages.

“Moreover, the OPM is not aware of and after a thorough and diligent search has not found in its possession, custody or power any such requested WhatsApp messages.”

While the ministry’s PS asked for an extension of time to respond to the request, emphasised, “The ministry does not have in its possession any WhatsApp messages as requested.”

However, the letter said the minister’s WhatsApp messages were being reviewed by his attorneys to respond.

“The process for recovering all of the WhatsApp messages for the last four years and identifying all of them that contain any of the five expressions referred to in the request is tedious and time-consuming and even after that, each individual message has to be examined to see whether, according to the legislation, the request ought to be granted.

“That process is being undertaken and one requires more time in order to complete it.” The ministry has asked for October 16 to give a response.

Meanwhile, Michelle Ottley-Jones, the designated FOIA officer for the police service, said the commissioner was not a “public authority” under the Freedom of Information Act,” and was an agency that fell under the Ministry of National Security.

Ottley-Jones further noted that the police service did not hold any official document that fell within the FOIA request.

“The TTPS does not have any established means by which text or WhatsApp messages generated or received on an individual officer’s mobile device are synced, linked or backed-up to the TTPS’ server which stores communications electronically, and therefore it does not maintain any record of same.

“It is also not a term and condition of the contract of employment of any member of the TTPS that he or she is required to maintain and/or transfer WhatsApp messages which may be exchanged via a mobile device, to the TTPS’ official records.

“There is also no statutory requirement, policy or practice of the TTPS to this effect; and more generally, where access is sought to a person’s private telephone communications, legislation such as the Interception of Communications Act, shows, at a minimum, that a judicially authorised warrant for obtaining access to such communications is required.”

The novel request was made after newspaper reports detailed alleged messages exchanged between former police commissioner Gary Griffith, Dr Rowley and Hinds over an FUL application and quarry-blasting licence for a Tobago quarry operator said to be a close friend of the prime minister.

The blogger contends that the WhatsApp messages mentioned in the newspaper articles demonstrated that public officials are using the communication medium for official business and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Ramkhalwhan said his client has since embarked on a FOIA project to scrutinise the messages.

“The exposure of these WhatsApp exchanges underscores the importance of accountability and oversight in government communications, especially concerning sensitive matters that impact public trust and confidence in law enforcement and regulatory agencies.”

The letter also said the practice of using the digital communication medium raised important questions about transparency and accountability in governance.”

Ramkhalwhan also said an assertion that the messages were not subjected to the FOIA would be a “perilous stance” since such a position “could potentially permit official communications to circumvent scrutiny and transparency requirements.”

“In a context where digital communications increasingly shape government operations, overlooking the applicability of FOIA to platforms like WhatsApp risks undermining the fundamental principles of accountability and openness in governance.

“These principles are essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring that decisions affecting citizens are made in a manner consistent with democratic norms.

“By interpreting FOIA in a manner that acknowledges and integrates digital modes of communication, governmental transparency is fortified, facilitating public access to information essential for informed citizenship and democratic governance. This approach not only aligns with contemporary technological advancements but also reinforces the foundational principles of democratic governance in an increasingly interconnected and digitally mediated society.”