As the controversy that started as an attack on the former attorney general, Anand Ramlogan, coming out of a Sunday Express article which subsequently boomeranged into a moral argument against David West's appointment and continuation in office as the director of the Police Complaints Authority continues, new information has come to hand.
Two Fridays ago, the Leader of the Opposition, Keith Rowley, admitted that he did not disclose to the Prime Minister that David West was going to become his witness in a defamation matter brought against him by Ramlogan.
With that revelation came the confirmation that the joint advice that was tendered to President Carmona by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition was utterly and completely flawed. The President was given bad advice because of the material non-disclosure by the Leader of the Opposition of his own personal conflict of interest in recommending West to the Prime Minister and subsequently to the President.
This issue has become a major political battle to try to keep David West in a position where he ought to step down. His continuation has the potential to compromise his office as he has no moral authority to question material non-disclosure by any police officer in any investigation being undertaken by him.His failure to tell the Prime Minister that he was assisting the Leader of the Opposition as a witness in his defence against the lawsuit brought by Ramlogan also begs the question of whether he disclosed to the President that he was assisting Dr Rowley.
Senior Counsel Martin Daly told Guardian reporter Reshma Ragoonath that it was pure speculation as to whether or not West had told the President about his legal involvement with Dr Rowley.
This raises a fundamental issue that goes right to the heart of the presidency. If we follow Daly's logic, then it is possible that he may have told the President privately of his involvement. If that is the case, then the President has made a fundamental error of judgment in carrying through with this appointment given the fact that his potential appointee was going to become a witness at a date after the appointment was made and not before, and he still did it. That is contentious.
On the other hand, if West did not tell the President of his potential involvement as a witness for Rowley, then the President now knows that neither he nor the Prime Minister were told. This was further compounded by Rowley's revelation that he did not tell the Prime Minister either.The President must now know that he received flawed joint advice from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that he could not vary and was forced to act on it.
It is very surprising that senior members of the bar and other prominent former and current public officials are quite comfortable with such a state of affairs. That is more political than it is legal.President Carmona has a decision to make about whether to allow the tainted appointment of David West to continue or to revoke the appointment in the face of so much prima facie evidence that confirms the flaw in that appointment.
The President needs to revoke the appointment of West, in his discretion, under Section 12(b) of the PCA Act for "any other cause" and start the process afresh. As it stands now, the society is divided over the process by which he was appointed. This can cause a loss of public confidence in his appointment and it may have disastrous effects within the Police Service because of his lack of moral authority to conduct investigations where material non-disclosure may become an issue because of his own example of material non-disclosure.
The fact that he was nominated by former national security minister Gary Griffith on a non-partisan basis is a credit to the Prime Minister who accepted the nomination and sought the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition. Griffith has publicly praised the Prime Minister for not viewing this appointment in party political terms. However, where West has tainted his own appointment is in engaging in material non-disclosure of his potential witness status with the Prime Minister and possibly the President.
The President needs to get the country out of this appointment because he was given flawed advice and he continues to withhold from the country whether he has taken a politically-biased stand against the Prime Minister and in favour of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue by allowing West to remain in office.
Material non-disclosure cannot be a standard by which the Office of the President will operate. When such facts become known, the President has a duty to take corrective action to show that he will not allow his office to be treated in this manner. Until such time as he does that, the lack of confidence in David West as PCA director will eventually arrive at the door of the presidency itself.Those who preach good governance are now prepared to swallow material non-disclosure as a good example. Really?