Hinds reveals 92 WhatsApp messages, blogger presses for details

A social activist and blogger who sought WhatsApp communication between the Prime Minister, the National Security Minister, and any of the police commissioners from 2020 to 2024 concerning firearm user's licences intends to go the whole nine yards to get the messages.

Blogger Vishal Persad said he intends to challenge specific denials regarding access to certain messages confirmed by the minister in a response to a freedom of information request.

“This legal challenge is essential to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability in our government,” Persad said. He is represented by attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan of JurisX Chambers.

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

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

On August 30, attorney Sonnel David-Longe for the PM and OPM 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.”

The police service’s designated FOIA officer Michelle Ottley-Jones said the messages were exempt as 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.”

Attorney Jo-Anne Julien for the ministry and the minister gave a response on October 14.

Julien said while the ministry had not found any WhatsApp messages – so as far as it was concerned they did not exist – the minister recovered 92 messages after a “diligent search of his WhatsApp messages.”

Julien said any message the minister held were in his sole custody and he (the minister) was not a public authority under the FOIA.

However, Julien said, “without prejudice,” of the 92 messages found; 18 were media releases; one was already in the public domain having been published by the media; and two were from former commissioner Gary Griffith which contain the words FUL. These were disclosed to Persad.

Julien also said four messages were exempt “as their disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about the individuals named in the messages.”

She said the messages named people with FULs (and their FUL numbers) and the “damage that may arise is greater than any benefit derived from disclosure.”

The attorney also noted that the minister considered the benefits of disclosure of the messages in the public interest “including the public's interest in understanding the decision-making processes that impact their safety and security as it relates to the issuance of FULs, accountability and oversight in government communications, transparency and public trust and confidence in law enforcement and regulatory agencies.”

However, she said it was the minister’s concern that given the state of crime in the country, the public interest lies in maintaining the confidentiality and secrecy of those named as holding FULs.

“Disclosing their names could put them at real risk of danger.”

Persad was given messages with names and FUL numbers redacted. He was also told a message with an opinion from a commissioner on the conduct and competence of senior police officers and consultation and deliberation between the commissioner and the minister adverse to those officers was exempt. Julien said its disclosure was likely to adversely affect the morale of senior officers in the police service.

“The disclosure of that message will reduce the morale among officers especially at this time with the high rate of crime.”

She also said its disclosure was likely to inhibit “frankness and candour” in future discussions between commissioners of police and ministers of national security.

“There is legitimate fear and concern that the disclosure of the message will likely engender disappointment or bitterness and disaffection such as to adversely affect the harmonious working relationship among officers and cause specific and tangible harm to the proper functioning of the TTPS which in turn will be to the detriment of the public who those officers serve.”

Julien further noted that one message concerned the conduct of the Praedial Larceny Squad and was also exempt as it would “adversely affect the morale” of that unit.

“Moreover, the comment is of a broad-brush nature which may be unfair to some of the officers in that squad.”

“There is legitimate fear and concern that the disclosure of the message will likely engender disappointment or bitterness and disaffection such as to adversely affect the harmonious working relationship among officers and among the ministers and those officers and cause specific and tangible harm to the proper functioning of the squad which in turn will be to the detriment of t)ie public who those officers serve.”

Julien was prepared to provide a portion of the message with the adverse opinion and deliberation redacted.

47 messages on criminal investigations

Her extensive response also noted that 47 messages disclosed information related to suspected or alleged crimes involving active and ongoing police investigations and were exempt.

“Those messages reveal specific details such as the date, times, addresses, the nature of the crime committed, the names of the alleged or suspected perpetrator/s and the victim/s of crimes and what evidence was found and/or discovered as a result of investigations.

“Those messages relate to the investigation of crimes involving firearms. The disclosure of those messages would or would be reasonably likely to prejudice the investigations or proceedings of the breach or possible breach of the law or prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law.

“Some of those messages also disclose information on charges against named individuals who are suspected of having committed various offences involving firearms.

“The disclosure of these messages would or would be reasonably likely to prejudice the fair and proper trial of the person or those persons named in the messages and/ or the impartial adjudication of those particular cases.

“These messages do not disclose any evidence of abuse of authority or neglect in the performance of official duty, injustice to an individual, danger to the health or safety of an individual or the public and/or unauthorised use of public funds.”

She added, “There is public interest in having those investigations successfully conducted and concluded. There is also public interest in ensuring that those investigations are not stymied by the disclosure of those 47 messages.

“There is also public interest and public benefit in the administration of justice which could be thwarted by the disclosure of those messages which disclose named individuals and the offences with which they have been charged (involving firearms) while their court cases are ongoing or their matters are yet to be heard in court.”

On behalf of the ministry and minister, Julien further rejected the allegation of an “incestuous relationship among office holders.

“Asking a commissioner of police about FUL applications of members of the security detail of the minister, which detail also serves the Chief Justice, does not reveal or evidence any such relationship.”

The novel request was made after newspaper reports detailed alleged messages exchanged between 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).