Griffiths file lawsuit to block FIU probe – Ex-CoP claims financial watchdog engaging in 'witch hunt'

IN January, attorneys for former police commissioner Gary Griffith, and his wife Nicole Dyer-Griffith filed a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the request by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)’s acting director, Nigel Stoddard, to several financial institutions for information on their accounts.

Stoddard and the Attorney General were named as the defendants. Griffiths’s claim forms part of the exhibit in a constitutional claim filed by firearms dealer Hugh Leong Poi.

In an affidavit, Leong Poi says after reading all the information in Griffiths’ claim, he “became tremendously concerned that the State apparatus, in the form of the Financial Intelligence Unit and members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, was being used to harass my company, myself and other members of the firearms industry, such as the Griffiths, for improper motives in the hope that those entities would obtain information to tarnish our good names and reputations.”

The Griffiths are challenging the same sections of the Financial Intelligence Unit Act and seeks similar declarations as Leong Poi’s as well as orders and injunctions to quash the FIU acting director’s requests and from being able to use any of the information he may have already received.

They also contend that Stoddard did not have any suspicious transaction or suspicious activity report from any financial institution on them for him to make such requests.

It also says they are concerned that the request was part of a “continued pattern” of unjustified attempts to use the State’s apparatus to “undermine the character and national reputation of Mr Griffith.”

It also speaks of the withdrawal of the merit list for the appointment of a police commissioner by the Police Service Commission (PSC) and of the announcement by National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds announcement of the audit into the police’s firearms section and the establishment of the six-member team of retired and serving police officers to carry on the audit as well as the report prepared by a retired ACP and chief of defence staff – submitted to the National Security Council – and an investigation by retired judge Stanley John commissioned by the PSC.

Griffith’s claim said he was never contacted by any member of the audit committee nor was he presented with any of their findings or concerns to give him an opportunity to respond.

The claim alleges the Prime Minister, in March 2022, admitted to meeting with then PSC chairman Bliss Seepersad, at President’s House when she was there to submit the merit list. The claim said, at this meeting, certain information about Griffith was provided to the PSC chairman which led to the withdrawal of the merit list. The claim contends, yet again, Griffith was never told what information was supplied by the Prime Minister nor was he allowed to respond.

It also spoke of the launch of Griffith's political party, the National Transformation Alliance and of Dr Rowley’s subsequent statements at a media briefing, in July 2022, relating to the firearms audit report and his intention to reveal the executive summary in the Parliament.

It also mentions a Sunday Express report on the alleged audit report and another statement by Dr Rowley at a political meeting on August 23, 2022, that the “biggest mistake [he] had made in [his] life” was to accept Griffith as police commissioner while referencing the audit report which, the prime minister said, made for “very, very troublesome reading.”

The claim refers to correspondence sent to the PSC on the use of the audit report in assessing Griffith who, by then, had reapplied for the job of top cop.

It then spoke of the legal action instituted by Griffith to prevent any part of the audit report from being laid in Parliament.

That was in September 2022. In March, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled that the report would not make its way to the Parliament or the public domain but can only be used by the police or the PSC for further inquiries.

“Should no such investigation ensue, then the prohibition (on publishing) would be absolute,” the judge said.

The Griffiths’ claim says on October 28, 2022, the former top cop received information from an anonymous source that the FIU made a request to financial institutions for information on him and his wife as well as other people and entities, 52 in all.

The claim said the Griffiths became concerned that a State apparatus was being used in what appeared to be an “illegitimate manner” and in an apparent “witch hunt” with the hope to get information to tarnish his name and reputation.

A pre-action protocol letter was sent on November 8, 2022, and the Chief State Solicitor’s office responded on November 21, saying the request was “not coercive” in nature and refused to provide information on if an STR or SAR had been received involving the 52 or the Griffiths on the “grounds of secrecy.”

The Griffiths’ claim also includes a constitutional aspect also complaining of breaches to their right to privacy in relation to their private banking information.

“On their face, sections 8(1) to (3) of the FIUA, empower the director to have access to the applicants’ private banking information from a financial institution or listed business.”

It says the sections of the act do not meet the three-tier test for constitutionality and while the law’s legislative objective was sufficiently important, it failed the proportionality aspect of it.

“There cannot be any constitutional justification for giving the director of the FIU carte blanche or unconditional power to pry into the private financial affairs of any person.

“To do so would give the FIU the power to embark on improper fishing exercises and witch hunts and allowing that cannot be a proportionate response to the problems that the FIU Act seeks to address.”

The Griffiths are represented by attorneys Larry Lalla and Shivanand Ramoutar.