The Police Service is not at this time conducting any criminal investigation into an allegation of perversion of justice with respect to the Attorney General, according to the service.
The service’s Communication Division issued the statement yesterday after TTG asked Police Commissioner Stephen Williams about the issue on Wednesday.
The query was made after Opposition PNM leader Keith Rowley, in Parliament asked the Prime Minister if she was aware that the outcome of the E-mailgate issue announced by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan (at a media briefing last Thursday) was “heading to a criminal investigation with respect to the perversion of justice.”
Persad-Bissessar replied she had no knowledge of any criminal investigation dealing with perversion of justice with respect to the AG, and couldn’t say. She said the police hadn’t advised her of any investigation and Rowley’s allegation was being made without any substance or evidence.
AG Ramlogan last week announced a judgement was granted in his favour after Rowley failed to provide a defence in the E-mailgate issue. PNM PRO Faris al-Rawi subsequently said the PNM wasn’t aware it had been granted an extension by the court to file its defence and had asked for the judgment to be set aside. He said the judiciary was probing the issue.
Rowley was unavailable to comment on the police service’s statement. AG Ramlogan, however, said:
“The police service has clarified there is no investigation into the alleged administrative error on the part of the Judiciary’s support staff. Dr Rowley must now apologise for misleading the Honourable Prime Minister, the Parliament and nation, his hysterical behaviour and irresponsible question to the Prime Minister had the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Such behaviour is reckless and unbecoming of a leader.”
“The Chief Justice has already announced an internal inquiry. It’s clearly prudent to allow this to be completed first. Thereafter, if any wrong doing is unearthed, it can be then referred to the DPP and police. Given the public concerns, the results of this enquiry should be made public by the Chief Justice.”
Ramlogan added, “We should be careful in what we say to avoid bringing the Judiciary into disrepute...I welcome any investigation by anyone, anytime, anywhere into this or any other matter. The administrative errors that occurred are a source of personal grievance and a cause for concern. A litigant is entitled to rely on an order of the court. He is, and shouldn’t be, expected to go behind that order to question the internal administrative process within the Judiciary.”
Ramlogan said,”My primary concern is to vindicate my character and reputation in light of the serious criminal allegations made in E-mailgate....Dr Rowley wishes to prolong this matter beyond the general election. These delay tactics shouldn’t be tolerated.”
“Given the seriousness of this matter, I hereby ask Dr Rowley and Al-Rawi whether they’ll agree to a joint application asking a newly assigned judge, Madam Justice Judith Jones, to deem this matter fit for urgent and early trial in April. Dr Rowley and I should subject ourselves to cross-examination and give evidence under oath so he can prove his claim with hard evidence.”
“When the dust settles, one of us must resign and criminal prosecutions should follow. (But) there’s no truth in E-mailgate. It’s a fabrication. I’ll happily tender my resignation if Dr Rowley proves his outrageous claim. I likewise ask that he publicly commit to a similar course should his claims be rejected. The ball’s now in your court, Dr Rowley.”