WAS THERE A POLITICAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST HENRY GREENE?
Now that Henry Greene, the Commissioner of Police, has been exonerated of the accusations of rape- he was never charged- and now that the court has established that the decision to recommend charges was without a rational basis, it is now time for a determination as to whether the Commissioner was the victim of a vicious political plot.
It is not sufficient for this case simply to be put to rest on the basis that a case of rape was not established against the Commissioner. It now needs to be determined whether the Commissioner was the victim of entrapment, whether he was framed and if so who were the forces that were behind any such actions.
There are of course forces who are not interested in fair play. They are not interested in getting to the bottom as to why the Commissioner in the first place faced these allegations. They want to see the back of the Commissioner. Having failed to have him indicted on criminal charges, they now wish to see him indicted in the court of public opinion and for him to lose his job for alleged professional misconduct. This is their fallback position.
Since they cannot nail him for rape, they want him off the job for professional misconduct.
But what is this professional misconduct that is being alleged? For professional misconduct to be established there has to be due process involved. A specific charge of misconduct has to be adduced and the Commissioner has to answer to that charge.
So what is the specific charge of misconduct that is being alleged against the Commissioner? The charge of professional misconduct is a general charge which covers all manner of things.
So what exactly is the specific charge of misconduct that the Commissioner is said to be guilty of. Those who wish to see the Commissioner dismissed are implying that he acted improperly when he had sex with someone whom he had met in his professional capacity. This is the basis of the allegation of professional misconduct.
The problem here is that the Commissioner says that the sex he had was consensual and since the charge of forcible sex or rape was never established, then it means that the Commissioner has never been proven to have had forced sex with his accuser.
Not proven to have had forced sex does not however mean that the sex was consensual. All it means is that rape was not established. But in order to establish that there was misconduct, it is necessary to disprove consensual sex.
The only basis for misconduct has to be the possibility that the sex was not consensual, that is, there was rape. But the courts have already pronounced that there was no rational basis for a charge of rape. And if there is no rational basis for rape, then forcible sex has not been established.
And if rape has not been established then consensual sex has equally not been disproved.
So what then will be the basis of a charge of professional misconduct? That the Commissioner had a liaison with someone who came to see him? Since the sex cannot be the basis of professional misconduct, then the only basis has to be that the Commissioner should not have had a liaison with his accuser.
But since when does having a liaison with someone constitute misconduct?
Is it being argued that it constitutes misconduct for one Commissioner to have a liaison with a member of the public but it is not professional misconduct for another person in the force to have multiple relations with female police ranks? Is this the argument?
If the Commissioner had used the powers of his office to pervert the course of justice and if in the process he had elicited sexual favours, then he may have opened himself to a charge of professional misconduct.
But there is no evidence that the Commissioner in any way helped his accuser or perverted the course of justice in relation to the investigation involving the woman. In fact, it can be hypothesized that one possible reason why the Commissioner found himself in this tangle was because he opted not to do the unprofessional thing and have the woman’s phone, which was seized by the police, returned to her.
So where is the professional misconduct? There is none and the Commissioner must not be penalized or denied another day off his job simply because there are forces out there who want him lynched.
What should be of greater concern is whether there was a political conspiracy hatched against the Commissioner of Police and if so who is behind it.