Blogger wants answers on UK investigator's role in police probes

BLOGGER and social media activist Vishal Persad has launched a freedom of information (FOI) project titled “The State Police,” aimed at uncovering details about the involvement of UK forensic investigator Kate McMahon and her firm, Edmonds Marshall McMahon (EMM), in police investigations in Trinidad and Tobago.

On February 18, Persad’s legal team—attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Keron Ramkhalwhan, and Anwar Hosein—submitted a formal request to acting Commissioner of Police Junior Benjamin. The request seeks official documents that reveal the terms of any contracts between the police service and McMahon or EMM, the payments made to date, and any communications between McMahon, EMM, the police service, and the Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd (EMBD).

According to the letter, media reports suggested that the government contracted and funded McMahon and her firm to work alongside the police on various investigations. Of particular concern were statements reportedly made by former CoP Gary Griffith, who said there were ethical concerns about these arrangements and that the government’s involvement created “confrontation” during his tenure.

“The FOIA applicant has carefully reviewed the information reported in the media and has significant concerns about the propriety of the political directorate contracting private police to investigate, obtain information, and potentially persecute political rivals in a sovereign democratic state such as TT.

“Our client is of the firm view and is also advised by his attorneys at law that police investigations must remain insulated and independent of political interference and discretion, and therefore, the recent media reports that the government has contracted these private investigators, made them police officers and tasked them to investigate prominent political opponents is extremely disconcerting.

“Such a declaration implies that the allocation of resources for law enforcement could be influenced by political considerations, which undermines the impartiality and fairness that are critical to maintaining public trust in law enforcement agencies.”

Persad’s lawyers argue that law enforcement processes must remain independent and insulated from political influence, warning that the perception of investigations being used as tools for targeting political opponents could erode public trust and undermine the justice system.

“This opens the door to the possibility that investigations may be conducted not for the purpose of ensuring accountability, but to attack political opponents or further a political agenda.

“This is a highly problematic and dangerous position, as it risks turning the justice system into a tool of political warfare, eroding public confidence in the fairness and objectivity of law enforcement. It also creates a dangerous precedent, where future investigations may be viewed as suspect, and the public may begin to question the legitimacy of any actions taken by the police or the government”

The letter argues that inefficiency or obstruction in concluding investigations could raise suspicions about ulterior motives and that public money must be spent with accountability, urgency, and transparency.

“Public money is meant to serve the public interest, not to be diverted for political posturing, deflection, or scapegoating. The funds should be used efficiently, with a clear, accountable purpose, and not be used as a tool for political agendas.

“The failure to conclude investigations that could have potentially far-reaching effects on public trust and governance is troubling. Such inefficiency may raise questions about whether the resources allocated are being used effectively or being obstructed for reasons beyond the investigation itself, including potential political motivations.

“The fundamental principle here is that the public purse is not intended for use as a mechanism for political leverage, nor should it be squandered due to bureaucratic inertia, inefficiency, or interference.

“Therefore, it is critical that any investigation funded through public money should be pursued with the utmost seriousness, accountability, and urgency, to ensure that the funds are not wasted and that the interests of the public are properly served."

The legal team reminded the acting commissioner that, under the Freedom of Information Act, a decision on the request must be communicated within 30 days, by March 18.

If the acting commissioner fails to respond, Persad’s attorneys warned they would explore legal options to compel the release of the requested information.