Ramesh on $55 million rental fiasco: Don’t blame DPP

FORMER attorney general Ramesh Maharaj, SC,  defended Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard on Thursday against the Government's criticism for not occupying a new office, by citing a police report which said the site exposed DPP staff to a "huge risk" from gangsters armed with high-powered assault rifles.

Maharaj, in a statement and recorded video, quoted at length from Special Branch correspondence to Gaspard, which the latter got permission from Commissioner of Police Erla Christopher-Harewood to make public on Wednesday He also cited several bureaucratic slip-ups in the building's rental and upgrade.

Both the Prime Minister and Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, had lamented Gaspard's non-occupancy of the office at 14-17 Park Street in east Port of Spain, while an accrued rent of $55 million was paid.

On October 19 at the House of Representatives Standing Finance Committee, Armour said the Government had ended its lease of the building after spending $55 million, but after Gaspard had not occupied it.

Citing Gaspard's 2014 letter agreeing to move in, Armour said, "The lease...has been terminated because the DPP has refused to move into the building.”

Dr Rowley, at a post-Cabinet briefing on October 26, said he was "incensed" and "hugely disappointed" at the DPP's non-occupancy, after the Government had paid to improve the building's security somewhat. The PM stormed, “The JLSC ought to explain this to the country."

Maharaj said the office was in close proximity to East Dry River, identified by the police as a crime "hot spot area, with a high incidence of gun crimes.

He said the building's eastern wall was made of glass, presenting a "risk of injury or death to the DPP and his staff, particularly in the upper three floors."

This security vulnerability was evaluated by the Physical Securities Unit of the Special Branch, Maharaj said, and the Special Branch assessment found a risk of a criminal attack, especially through the glass wall, if the DPP's office occupied the building.

"It was the opinion of that unit that the building was vulnerable to high-velocity projectiles discharged by someone firing a rifle, and that there was a great line of sight from the hills to the building, in particular the upper three floors.

"The Special Branch reports characterised the risk of injury or death to the DPP and his staff if they occupied the building as being highly probable unless its recommendations for the safety and security of the building were implemented."

These remarks come against the backdrop of news reports noting an upsurge in the use of military-grade assault rifles by gangsters in the past few years.

Maharaj said, "The unit also found that this area was considered a high crime area known for gang-related activities, especially firearm offences. This unit also found that this distance should be taken into consideration in case of any threat and it is unlikely that a 9-mm calibre ammunition will be used by any potential perpetrators from this area, thus making the installed glass ineffective against other commonly utilised calibre ammunition such as 40-calibre, 45-calibre, 5.56 and 7.62 ammunition."

Maharaj said the Special Branch unit recommended a higher level ballistics proofing should be used on all the glass windows on the eastern side of the building.

He cited the 2020 unit's critical assessment loss analysis.

"That in respect of people – loss of life, personal injuries etc – high risk.

"Information – loss or damage to critical information – high risk

"Processes – interruption of critical services resulting in prosecution delays – high risk."

Likewise, the loss of damage of equipment through sabotage was deemed high risk.

Maharaj said the DPP considered the Government had not addressed the Special Branch's security concerns about the building. If the DPP's office heeded the Government's order to move in, that would have exposed Gaspard and his staff to "huge risks" to their safety, for which he and the Government would be responsible.

Maharaj said the Government's formal rental period was for April 2019-April 2022 (followed by informal renewals), but without security clearance from Special Branch.

The AG and DPP in August 2022 agreed to a July 2022 Special Branch report recommending the concrete wall, which the property owner also agreed to subsequently. But by last March, the owner resiled (withdrew) and stopped any alterations to the building, Maharaj related.

He said Gaspard did not know the Government had entered its rental agreement in 2019.
"The reason which the DPP has given for not occupying the building with his staff is the non-implementation of the recommendations made by the Special Branch pertaining to securing the areas of the building which were in line of sight of ballistic attacks. "

Maharaj said despite the Government's not fully implementing the Special Branch recommendations, the rental agreement's expiring, and the DPP's non-occupancy, "the Government wanted to extend the lease agreement." Gaspard did not object but said this was subject to Special Branch's concerns.

Maharaj raised three issues. Firstly, why did the Government enter into a rental agreement without first getting the Special Branch assessment? Secondly, if armed with that report, the Government could have insisted in the rental contract that it be allowed to carry out all alterations to comply with Special Branch concerns. Thirdly, why did the Government pay electricity bills and rent since 2019 and before the DPP had taken up occupancy?

He said that rather than considering two proposals by the Special Branch, the matter ended up at Nidco, which made proposals to shore up the building's vulnerabilities, "while, shockingly, admitting they had not seen the Special Branch reports."

Maharaj said last January, Gaspard told the Criminal Justice Committee that Special Branch had told him Nidco's proposal could only withstand 9-millimetre ammunition, but not high-calibre projectiles, but a Special Branch option offered appropriate armour to considerably decrease the risk posed by projectiles from high-powered weapons in the area.

Maharaj said criticisms of Gaspard's non-occupancy were "inaccurate" and "unfair."

He cited a report by former head of the public service Sandra Jones which said Gaspard said one reason for his non-occupancy was the non-implementation of the Special Branch recommendations on securing the areas of the building in line of sight for ballistic attacks.

Maharaj opined, "The DPP is and was entitled in law to rely on the contents of the Special Branch reports, to not occupy the building, on the ground that to do so would have exposed him and his staff to the risks to their lives.

"The law imposed a duty on the DPP towards his staff for him to take reasonable care to avoid any injury to them and for him to protect them from the risk of injury."

Under the Constitution, the DPP in independently responsible for criminal proceedings, Maharaj said. He said staff of the DPP's Office must often deal with threats of violence by very dangerous criminal elements.

"The criminal landscape in Trinidad and Tobago today seems to provide fertile grounds for the execution of these threats and it is not unknown that persons involved in the profession of prosecution are liable to fall prey to these elements. In this regard the death of Dana Seetahal, SC, has to be remembered."

Maharaj concluded that Gaspard had no input into the Government's decision for the rental agreement, to pay rent post-tenancy, or to consider renewing the lease.

He listed Gaspard's five remarks to Jones. The time for readiness of occupation was inordinately long. A public office's core business must be considered in selecting a suitable area for relocation. The safety of staff lives was predominant over any consideration, least of all the rental cost. Greater collaboration and communication was needed between stakeholders, especially regarding Special Branch's choice of materials for fortification. Any site to house key officers in the administration of justice must include a Special Branch risk assessment at the stage of selection and outfitting.

Newsday sought the PM's response to Maharaj's remarks that staff were at risk and the rental/renewal was done despite an incomplete threat assessment.

Rowley, in a text message, replied, "Really."