Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley rose to the de­fence of Po­lice Com­plaints Au­thor­i­ty di­rec­tor David West, say­ing the re­moval of the PCA head by the Pres­i­dent is gov­erned by Sec­tion 12 of the PCA Act and in on­ly ap­plic­a­ble where that per­son is un­able or un­fit to per­form their du­ties.

"The du­ties of the chair­man are pre­scribed by the Act. The ques­tion is whether the fact of the chair­man be­ing a com­plainant in a mat­ter be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed by the po­lice ren­ders him un­able to per­form his du­ties as op­posed to a sce­nario where the chair­man is him­self the sub­ject of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion as is the case with the AG," Row­ley said yes­ter­day."The chair­man, by the fact of be­ing a com­plainant, does not make him a ben­e­fi­cia­ry of the ac­tions of the po­lice.

"In crim­i­nal mat­ters, the State pros­e­cutes crime for the pro­tec­tion of so­ci­ety in gen­er­al. It is there­fore in the in­ter­est of so­ci­ety that per­sons must re­port an al­le­ga­tion of crim­i­nal con­duct so that an in­de­pen­dent in­ves­ti­ga­tion is com­menced for the ben­e­fit of the State," he added.

Row­ley, a ge­ol­o­gist, said: "The fact that he is a wit­ness is of no ben­e­fit to the of­fice of chair­man of the PCA. There is there­fore no con­flict of in­ter­est be­tween a chair­man who com­plains of a crime and a chair­man whose job it is to mon­i­tor the im­par­tial­i­ty of a po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tion."In any event, if there is a per­cep­tion of a con­flict in a par­tic­u­lar mat­ter, the prop­er and nor­mal course is re­cusal from any judg­ment in the par­tic­u­lar mat­ter, as has been the norm.

"The il­log­ic of an in­fu­ri­at­ed Prime Min­is­ter, who felt she was de­nied the op­por­tu­ni­ty to brow­beat and cov­er up cer­tain wrong do­ing is al­so a mes­sage to all, es­pe­cial­ly pub­lic ser­vants who are wit­ness to Gov­ern­ment wrong­do­ing, that they should keep qui­et or face the wrath of the Prime Min­is­ter and Gov­ern­ment."

On whether Car­mona can in fact re­move West from of­fice as called for by Per­sad-Bisses­sar, Row­ley said:

"The pow­er of the Pres­i­dent is lim­it­ed to judg­ing whether the chair­man is un­able to per­form his func­tions as chair­man of the PCA. The words 'un­able' refers to in­abil­i­ty to do the job as chair­man of the PCA, not the in­abil­i­ty to over­see a par­tic­u­lar in­ves­ti­ga­tion."The op­po­site is true of the AG. He wasn't a wit­ness. He's the ob­ject of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion which is crim­i­nal in na­ture and there­fore may suf­fer per­son­al con­se­quences if found guilty, which would have pre­vent­ed him from hold­ing pub­lic of­fice."