Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. Yes, hi Satish, good morning.
[00:00:10] Speaker B: Good morning to you.
[00:00:12] Speaker A: Yes, and good morning to your listeners on Freedom 105 FM.
[00:00:16] Speaker B: It's nice to have you with us here this morning.
You have an insight into the workings of the Police Service Commission and, and this morning there's a lot of focus on the Police Service Commission and their actions in this entire fiasco, if that's the term we could use to describe what's going on with our Police Commissioner. There is a front page story and I think you'd be well aware of it, where the attorney representing the Police Commissioner has given the Commission until 2 o'clock this afternoon to rescind their action against Earl. I would. Christopher and to reinstate her from fully. Let's begin with your summary of the actions of the Police Service Commission in this matter thus far, starting with them receiving correspondence from DCP Suzette Martin and taking action against Earla Howard. Christopher was that the right approach?
[00:01:12] Speaker A: Well, Satish, and I say this, I mean with all respect to all parties, you know, I mean, these are just my views, but it would appear to me that at the time when this letter was issued by the Police Service Commission to Ms. Hereward. Christopher Right, because I see it's a letter dated 31 January.
It would appear that at the time the Police Service Commission would have acted properly in the sense that you had information coming to you from Deputy Commissioner of Police confirming that the Commissioner had been detained, had been under arrest and was the subject of an immediate investigation in relation to misbehavior in public office. The office of Commissioner is a public office. So therefore if your commissioner is, is under investigation and under arrest and under questioning in relation to that and this information is coming to you from a dcp, then of course I think the Police Service Commission would have acted properly in the sense of trying to ensure that they maintain public trust and confidence in the police service and to ensure the good administration of justice in the circumstances by asking her to step aside from her duties.
And they also gave her seven days within which she can respond and, you know, make representations as to why they should consider another course of action. So I think they did everything within their power with the information they had at the time. Let's note that this is prior to her being released the following day. You see, it would have made a big, big difference if their letter had come after she had been released. Then the question would be, well, then you could ask for Justification and some of the things that I have seen in the letter from the attorney, you know, as to what evidence you considered and stuff like that. At that point, they don't have to consider evidence on the 31st when the Commissioner was still under arrest and still under the investigation. Right. It's not their duty to, to do that. They have to. There is the presumption of propriety which they would act on. You know, that. Look, if it is that you are advising this and you are saying that you are seeking guidance from the office of the dpp, then of course I think the Police Service Commission would have acted properly in taking the step they did on the 31st of January.
[00:03:52] Speaker B: So let's fast forward to today and this what has been described as in essence a pre action protocol letter stating that if she's not fully reinstated by 2 o'clock, there's going to be legal action.
What do you think are the options that the Police Service Commission can adopt or should adopt in this situation?
[00:04:14] Speaker A: Well, I mean, I am not presuming to advise the Police Service Commission or to, you know, suggest what they should or shouldn't do, but what I would say is in the circumstances, I would treat it as, as this being the response within the seven days that I would have given the, you know, Commissioner. So in other words, if I told you of this decision and I said, well, okay, look, I'm giving you seven days to respond and we now have this letter from your attorney, it can be presumed that this is the response within the seven days. The letter has to be considered, you know, on its merits. And of course the Police Service Commission will then have to decide how they are treating with it. It may very well be that they can reply and say, well, hey, listen, yes, we fully understand that the circumstances have now changed in that your client has since been released. And that is something we are considering, you know, because I mean, of course then that, you know, puts a different spin and a different light on the entire scenario. There's also on the other side of the coin, the fact that the TTPS has suggested or indicated that the investigation is still ongoing. So they may take a course of prudence and write back to the attorney and say, hey, listen, yes, we fully understand the circumstance has changed and we are looking at it. We consider this to be your client's response within the seven days whereby, you know, we invited her to make a representation and some of the points you are making are definitely meritorious. We are going to have an immediate request from the ttps, the DCP who notified us in the first place or who may be leading the investigation as to what is the actual status of the investigation and whether your client remains a subject of the investigation. Because just to say the investigation is ongoing is not sufficient. The police Service has to indicate whether the commissioner remains a subject of an active, ongoing investigation at this point. It would then be necessary to now begin to consider, well, okay, what is the reality and, you know, realistic prospect that, okay, this could lead to a charge? Do you have sufficient evidence? What is what, what do you have at this stage? They may also reach out to the DPP to find out, well, his role in all of this, his views, his thoughts, etc. If it is, the DPP writes back to the Police Service Commission and says, hey, listen, having reviewed all the evidence, I see absolutely no basis for any charge, you know, not now or in the near future. Then, of course, the Police Service Commission could then now write back to the cop's attorney and say, hey, listen, right. Having gotten all of this information, it appears there's no longer any or danger in relation to, you know, any immediate arrest or any charging or anything of the sort. In the circumstances, your client's, you know, status is restored as, you know, head of the police service. It would then now be incumbent on the Police Service Commission to call upon the dcp, who may have been the prime mover and shaker behind this entire exercise, to explain her actions and her role and to provide her justification. Because it cannot be that the. A step like this is taken and, you know, it ends up basically fizzling out like a damp squib. And then you're telling me, well, okay, the persons who initiated or who were the architects behind it just walk away without any, you know, recrimination at all. So the DCP may then find herself the focus of an investigation and an inquiry from the PSC to justify and explain what, you know, prompted her actions.
[00:08:17] Speaker B: This matter is very complex. It's not. It is by no means a simple issue to be resolved. Now more than ever with what you've just suggested are some of the issues that the Police Service Commission will have to confront.
It is complex simply because of the implications of the actions of the Police Service Commission moving forward with this matter. Obviously, you have Earla Herbert Christopher and her lawyers who are seeking her best interests, and you have the Police Service Commission that would be looking after the Police Service's best interest.
So a lot to take place in a very short space of time.
We have to wait to see how they're going to respond, but Is.
Is it a possibility? I'm not asking your opinion now because some are suggesting that if the investigation is still ongoing, to put Earla Howard Christopher back in office, could compromise or could give reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the investigation because she might have the possibility or the jurisdiction or the ability to influence any investigation. Is that something that needs to be weighed as well?
[00:09:35] Speaker A: Right. And that's why I said, you know, satish, at this point, the PSC has to dig deeper. They have to do a deep dive because they need to now get some more details. It can't be that you just telling me, okay, investigation is still ongoing in Trinidad and Tobago. We know in sometimes investigations are ongoing for years. So what during all this time, this must be hanging over somebody's head. Their character, their credit, their name, their reputation being damaged and sullied all the time and all. You're saying investigation ongoing? No, you have to show some kind of credible basis and justification for saying that, you know, the Commissioner of Police remains an active suspect as part of this investigation. You have to show what evidence you have and where are you in terms of the investigation, in terms of how close are you to making a decision to charge or not charge and where, one way or the other, you need to be able to put that in writing. In other words, having considered all the evidence, the final decision is that we are not charging, having considered all the evidence and based upon all the things we have, yes, we do have enough information and yes, we are proceeding to charge and you need to clear the air one way or the other. So that's what I'm saying. So I think at this point, the PSC is on good, solid ground. They just need to craft a proper answer, carefully worded to the attorney, acknowledging the merits of some of the points that she's making, you know, because some of the points are meritorious, letting her know that. We consider this to be your client's response within the seven days because we gave you an opportunity to respond. And now that the scenario has changed, we are definitely going to consider your points. We are going to consider this changed scenario. We have a couple inquiries to make. One of the DCP who initiated this, as to what's the status of the investigation, what's the evidence you have in terms of the investigation, how realistic is their possibility that there is some likelihood that the Commissioner is going to be charged, you know, based upon the strength of the evidence? We would also want to know, you know, is she an active suspect in the ongoing investigation? Because if you notice the words that were used is that the investigation is ongoing. That doesn't mean it's an investigation ongoing into the Commissioner of Police. You know, that's just a blanket phrase the police use to cover themselves. So therefore the PSC has to, as I say, do that deep dive. And they also can reach out to the office of the DPP, you know, for his thoughts and his views, etc. And then they weigh all of it. And if it is that they, you know, having looked at it, they conclude that, look, there really doesn't appear to be any there there. In other words, this was all a storm in a teacup. It was maybe an attempted palace coup. It was whatever you want to describe it as, then in those circumstances, they could then properly respond to, you know, the cop's attorney, the commissioner's attorney, and say, hey, listen, having considered everything and considering your representation, we are now satisfied that there's no basis for the continued request for her to refrain from duties. She is reinstated to her duties. So they are, I think, on solid ground thus far. They just need to manage it very carefully, cautiously and expeditiously going forward.
[00:13:14] Speaker B: Initially you had, when this entire thing had, had, had just happened, you had, I think you had called for Earla to be removed. But I, a number of things have happened since.
[00:13:25] Speaker A: No, I, I, I, I, I called for her to be placed an administrative leave. Exactly what they did, basically, that, you know, she removed from the office of com. The, from performing her duties.
[00:13:40] Speaker B: Now there have been some really interesting developments as well.
We saw the arms dealer who brought the weapons in going into the police administration and being told that he's not a person of interest. We saw that the chief of defense staff, who we initially were told was part of the investigation was not a person of interest.
And I don't know if any others who were initially identified have since been deemed to not be persons of interest. And we have now just major best, who we are still told is a person of interest and the Commissioner of police.
From your understanding of how the process works and the information in the public domain, what.
Because if it's a criminal investigation, a crime would have been committed or suspected of being committed. What is the possible crime that the commissioner could have committed?
[00:14:47] Speaker A: I don't, I don't have the information, so I can't comment on that. You see?
[00:14:50] Speaker B: No, that, that's, I think that's an interesting part of the discussion because we are being told as a nation that the Commissioner is being investigated in a criminal investigation, but nobody telling us, well, was the crime she possibly could have committed.
And that glaring bit of information is essential in the public arriving at a conclusion as to how they should feel in this matter.
[00:15:14] Speaker A: Because, I mean, all we have is from the commission, the Police Service Commission, where they speak of an allegation of misbehavior in public office. But as to the details and, you know, the basis and the evidence, I have no clue as to what it is they're basing it on.
[00:15:33] Speaker B: And, and, and I, I think that's. That's unacceptable because misbehavior in public office can mean anything. That is so broad a term.
[00:15:43] Speaker A: That's right.
[00:15:44] Speaker B: That is so broad a term that you really can't pin down exactly what it is they investigating this woman for.
And, and, and it leads to speculation because if they were to come out and say, well, here we are going on, we believe that she conspired with this man to do something she wasn't supposed to do, not saying that she did without the allegation, but if something like that was stated, the public would have been able to say, well, how they feel strongly on the situation or not, or whatever else. But the vagueness with the information in the public domain is concerning to me because this is the highest office of the police service that we are talking about.
[00:16:24] Speaker A: And don't get me wrong, that is why. That is why last week, I said, I said last week, Friday, that this is not a step to be taken lightly. In other words, the only way you begin to embark upon such a step is if you already have your evidence, and that's evidence sufficient to be able to lay a charge. So it really is an indictment on the upper brass and the upper echelons of the Police Service that you go through this whole big public charade and you parade the Commissioner basically as a suspected criminal to the whole world. This went beyond Trinidad and Tobago. It went beyond the region, it went international.
So you have paraded your commission of police to the world as a suspected criminal, and then now you release her two days after and say, well, the investigation is ongoing. Absolutely unacceptable. That's why I'm saying the Police Service Commission has a duty and they must begin an investigation into the dcp who would have informed them of this and. And who might have been the prime mover and shaker behind this entire episode. That DCP has to account, and the Police Service Commission has to call upon that DCP to account.
[00:17:53] Speaker B: And the Police Service Commission does have that jurisdiction.
[00:17:56] Speaker A: Yes, they do.
[00:17:57] Speaker B: They do, yeah. Well, I don't know where this matter is going to head I will have to wait until 2:00 this afternoon. I'll find out what transpires. But you've given us a lot of clarity into how we should be thinking about the matter, how things play out and what's the role and function and jurisdiction and so on of the various stakeholders in the discussion in the situation that we've been dealing with at this point in time. I want to take yeah, I'm no.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: Satich, unfortunately I have another interview that I have to head off to at this point.
[00:18:33] Speaker B: Well I was about to end the interview anyway because I know that your time is limited this morning. I want to thank you. I want to thank you for being with us here this morning.
[00:18:42] Speaker A: Indeed, it's always a pleasure. Thank you.
[00:18:44] Speaker B: And that's how we end our interview this morning, ladies and gentlemen with former Police Service Commission member and attorney Martin George.
[00:18:55] Speaker A: The Best insight Instant Feedback Accountability the All new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
