Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar yesterday disagreed with Police Complaints Authority (PCA) director David West's refusal to meet with him on the issue concerning Attorney General Anand Ramlogan.West has responded by sticking to his position, noting Ramadhar's acceptance of his position to decline a meeting on the issue and again emphasising the PCA's independence and that it cannot and does not have a line ministry.
Allegations of witness tampering are dogging the AG following a newspaper report that six days before West was appointed PCA director Ramlogan asked him to withdraw his witness statement in the defamation lawsuit involving PNM's Keith Rowley.It was related to the failed extradition concerning Section 34 applicants Steve Ferguson and Galbaransingh, in exchange for West being selected for the PCA job.
Ramadhar after a COP meeting on Monday sought to meet West to "clear the air" (sic) on the issue but West declined, saying the matter did not relate to the PCA or PCA's director in performance of his duties and that the PCA was an independent office
Ramadhar replied yesterday, saying: "While I accept your reasons I respectfully do not share your view on two important issues, namely that the matter did not relate to the PCA or the director of the PCA on the performance of the functions of that office and that the minister's responsibility must be understood to be limited to speaking on behalf of the authority, in accordance with parliamentary custom or practice and no more.
"With respect to the first issue, it is a matter of public record that an allegation has been made to the effect that the job of director of the PCA was offered in exchange for the candidate's withdrawal of a witness statement."This places the very appointment of the PCA into question and therefore raises important questions about the authority's ability to execute independently its mandate.
"With respect to the second issue, any minister who is required to speak on behalf of any authority can only do so to the extent that he feels satisfied the authority has not been compromised."Ramadhar said the established parliamentary custom "clearly does not envisage a scenario such as the one currently engaging public attention and therefore cannot apply in the present circumstances."
He added: "Notwithstanding any demarcation (real or perceived) what remains paramount is the public interest and the ability of public institutions to serve those interests."Against this background as a responsible minister whose interest remains the uncompromising integrity of the authority on behalf of which I am required to speak, I feel duty bound to seek clarity on these issues that directly impact my ability to speak with assuredness."
Ramadhar said while he understood and accepted West's rationale in declining to meet for discussions, he felt it necessary to record his thoughts on the subject since West's position was widely circulated in the media.West, however, responded that his view on the appointment of a PCA director was that the methodology was prescribed in Section 5 of the PCA Act and was exclusively within the President's province.
On the other issue, West noted an extract of an opinion from a senior counsel of December 31, 2014 which, he said, was very relevant.It stated that "none of the acts dealing with assignment of responsibility for the authority to a minister–12 of 2011,10 of 2000 and 17 of 1993–purports to vest the minister to whom responsibility is assigned with the power of control over the authority nor in any way seeks to derogate from the authority's independence.
"The assignment of this responsibility must be interpreted in light of the express independence conferred by Parliament on the PCA."
West said: "Finally, I reiterate in view of the provision of Section 19 of the PCA Act that the PCA cannot and does not have a line minister."