Having criticised Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardson more than once in this space and in my mind–in relation to the shoddy Sea Lots fatal-accident investigation; then when he allowed himself to first be baited by the Laventille granny and then to surrender his self-control and manhandle her; and again when he was appointed to lead the current investigation into the alleged e-mail-exchange among the Prime Minister, Attorney General, the PM's security adviser, and superminister Dr Suruj Rambachan–it is important to me to register that some of my respect for him has returned.
On Thursday Mr Richardson was quoted in a daily newspaper as calling for an end to the sideshow of IT experts who have been pronouncing on the authenticity of the e-mails that Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley presented to Parliament and that, if genuine, would be a ghastly tipping point in the evolution of this country's politics.
Mr Richardson, of course, flip-flopped; he had said before that he was not about to conduct this investigation in the full view of the press, suggesting his comments would be infrequent. Nevertheless, he has continued to issue curt updates and comments, and this is one occasion when I am happy for his turnaround.
His orbiting, too, is minor, really, compared to the undisguised inconsistencies from government head honchos. When Dr Rowley announced that he had passed the alleged e-mails to the President's office and to the Integrity Commission, the Government's response was that he ought to have taken the matter to the police, and that Dr Rowley didn't trust the police–an enormous change against a prime ministerial aspirant.
The implication from the PM, AG and other PP frontliners was that they were possessed of such faith.Yet the AG instructed a member of his staff–Roger Sealy, information technology manager in the Ministry of the Attorney General–and an independent IT specialist, Terrance Mohan, to investigate and offer an opinion on the authenticity of the e-mails, the very matter being investigated by the police. The two IT specialists concurred the e-mails were fake.
This pre-emptive conclusion–which, just as a reminder, the police probe is supposed to determine–was then attached to the AG's formal statement and passed to the police investigators. It was also somehow leaked to the media.Mr Richardson has seen this for what it is: an attempt by the office of the Attorney General to influence–or in his, less vague, word, "undermine"–his investigation.
The Prime Minister, for her part, hired Israel Khan, SC, to protect her interests. Khan, acting on instructions from his client, contracted American IT specialist Jon Berryhill to review the e-mails. Berryhill found them to be false. This equally pre-emptive conclusion was offered to the media for dissemination.
The media were further told that Mr Berryhill had communicated with Google requesting confirmation that some of the e-mail addresses were invalid now and back then.In what capacity, I wonder, was Mr Berryhill writing to Google, and what makes him think that Google will release data information to a private citizen?In any event, Mr Richardson saw this, too, for what it is: an attempt to "undermine" his investigation, to convolute the matter being investigated, and to prejudice public opinion.
I recall many instances when the PM used "currently under investigation" and unwillingness to "prejudice the police investigation" as reasons for her no-comment responses to the media.Adding further density to the e-mail confusion is the full-frontal attack on the chairman of the Integrity Commission that has no commissioners, Ken Gordon, for his meeting with Dr Rowley at his home.
I am happy to read that Dr Rowley is taking the blame for a good man because he, from his own statement in Parliament, had the documents in hand long before he approached Mr Gordon.But the meeting between Dr Rowley and Mr Gordon is an issue separate from the matter of whether the e-mails are real. Government spokesmen have been collapsing the two, however, and I would assume they know why.
To the public, the conflation of the two issues is adding more and more confusion when everyone's focus would likely be better rewarded if directed at seeking truth. When truth is being sought, confusion should be kept at a minimum. The Government has adopted the opposite approach.But back to Mr Richardson. I want to congratulate him on his astute analysis of the political environment and his self-confidence.
Of course, I write this with some caution because I know this town a little bit, so I know that by the time this is published a lot could change. I didn't, however, want to miss the opportunity to send solidarity to the DCP for his efforts under trying circumstances.
This is a big test of him and the T&T Police Service. For all the efforts that the service has been making and wanting to make to increase public confidence in it, it may well find that its success or failure–whatever the findings–in this matter will do more than any other effort to restore its good name, even if that means justifiably tarnishing the names of others.