Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Sep 13, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News – The Regional Security System (RSS) was not asked to carry out any investigation. It was requested to undertake a review of the police investigation into the murder of Paper Shorts.
As such, there was no requirement for the RSS to interview any witness alleging a cover-up. An independent review is not the same as an independent investigation.
The same process was followed in respect to rape allegations made against former Commissioner of Police Henry Green. That review was not conducted by the RSS but by other regional personnel. Having undertaken that review certain findings were adduced which led to charges being filed against the former Commissioner.
The High Court subsequently ruled that it had the jurisdiction to review the evidence and it held that there was little chance of a successful prosecution. Nonetheless, the former Commissioner was not returned to his post and later died in a tragic accident.
In the present instance, the RSS contracted out the review to an investigator from the United Kingdom. As such, it is ingenious for anyone to dare question the competence of the RSS to conduct the review.
The review had three objectives. The first was to determine whether the Police Force had effectively investigated the unlawful killing of Paper Shorts. The second was to review the investigation undertaken by the Police. In other words, the first was to decide whether they did a proper investigation and the second was to review that investigation. The third objective was to determine whether there is any evidence of wrongdoing against two police officers, as alleged by Sergeant Bascom.
The person from the UK Metropolitan Police who undertook the investigation was not required to conduct any investigation or to flush out such evidence but merely to determine whether such evidence existed. The person therefore could not have interviewed the person making the allegation since not only would this have been outside the reviewer’s mandate but it would also have entailed undertaking an independent investigation as opposed to an independent review.
An independent investigation would have to be predicated on a prima facie case being made out. Unfortunately, the person who made the allegation of someone receiving $30M bribe to cover-up the case, has not provided a shred of evidence to substantiate the allegation.
And since the review was not required to undertake an independent investigation but merely to review the work done by the police, it is disingenuous to say that the person making the allegation should have been interviewed.
So what were the findings of the RSS review find? These findings were made public in a release issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs even though the report, for obvious reasons – there is an ongoing investigation – cannot be made fully public.
Firstly, the review concluded that the bribery allegations were hearsay. To move from hearsay to having provenance would require that the accusation be put in writing and be substantiated with evidence. Where is the evidence?
Secondly, the report raises some issues of credibility of the person making the allegation and the report says that the timing of the allegations raises questions about their veracity. Credibility is a major factor into the believability of evidence.
Concerns have also been raised about the practice of moonlighting which has become quite prominent in the Force and which it is said is in contravention of the Police Act. It is not clear what this had to do with the witness’ credibility.
Questions have also been raised about the veracity of one of the allegations made concerning communication equipment. The police had previously denied that it had such equipment which would make them the first in the world with technology to go to a crime scene and determine that a phone call was made from that spot, from which phone the call was made and to whom it was made.
The report concluded that the Guyana Police Force has done extensive work into the unlawful killing/homicide investigation and that there was no evidence of corrupt practices. It recommended some additional forensic work.
Understandably, the person making the allegations of corruption was peeved and especially so at not being interviewed. But it would have been outside of the scope of the review for such an interview to have taken place since this would have meant the RSS conducting its own independent investigation rather than an independent review.
A review can only look at the existing evidence and to determine whether it is sufficient and/or deficient. The reviewer cannot go and seek new evidence. This would be outside of the scope of the review.
As to the release of the entire report, this is not likely. There is an ongoing investigation and things may be contained in that report which should be kept confidential in light of the ongoing investigation. To release the entire report would be to prejudice certain aspects of the investigation.
But if the person who made the allegations feels that justice has not been served and if this person does indeed have evidence of a cover-up and the payment of bribes, then that person should make that evidence known to the United States Embassy.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
Please share this to every Guyanese including your house cats.
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]