Senior Reporter
dareece.polo@guardian.co.tt
People’s National Movement PRO Faris Al-Rawi is raising serious concerns about the Cabinet’s decision to withdraw the security detail of former prime minister Stuart Young.
Speaking in his capacity as a former member of the National Security Council, Al-Rawi questioned the legitimacy and appropriateness of such a move being taken by the Cabinet rather than law enforcement authorities.
“I am surprised, as a former attorney general and as a former member of the National Security Council, that the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago can make a decision as to a national security issue. I’m very surprised at that,” he said.
Al-Rawi said if the decision had come from the office of the Commissioner of Police, he would have had no objection, citing Commissioner Allister Guevarro’s prior experience in intelligence.
“I would have no problem if it is the Commissioner of Police after there is a security concern, addressing the issue because obviously, we have a sitting Commissioner of Police who was a former Special Branch officer himself and would understand these things,” he said.
However, Al-Rawi took issue with the Cabinet directly intervening in operational matters related to national security.
He also claimed there was a double standard because Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar was afforded extended security for the nearly ten years of her tenure.
In Rowley’s case, it was only commissioned by Gary Griffith who broke ranks after it was removed under then National Security minister John Sandy.
Former TTPS official warns of ‘bad precedent’
A former senior official of the T&T Police Service (TTPS) warned that the Cabinet’s reported decision to rescind Young’s security detail could set a dangerous precedent that discourages public service and compromises national security protocols.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the retired officer said standard operating procedures have long governed how long former high-ranking officials are provided with state security after demitting office.
“There’s protocol, there’s protocol existing, coming from the Special Branch and who specialises in that area, so that there may be written protocol that if someone was the former Minister of National Security or some main government official, they may provide ... they may keep protection for the President for a six-month period, if it’s a prime minister out of office, they may keep protection for him for a six-month or a year period. There are protocols.”
He said those timelines could be extended if there is intelligence pointing to a credible threat.
Asked whether it was appropriate for a government to instruct the TTPS or Special Branch to deviate from those protocols, the former officer was unequivocal.
“No, no. What I’m saying is, it’s bad precedent that is being set and you have to remember, today for me, tomorrow for you, and if these protocols are set, these protocols are not set for a particular party. It’s a general thing that will run across the board.”
He stressed that interfering with established security procedures sends the wrong message to current and future public officeholders.
“So when, when you interfere with those things, you create a serious dilemma, and then a message is being sent. It may cause a person who may want to go into public life like that, not to go because when they finish with you, they’re done with you, they put you out of the school.
“People will feel threatened not to participate, so it could provide a lot, a lot of negativity,” he said.
Yesterday, Guardian Media exclusively reported that Young’s detail was pulled before the stipulated time.
Former Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley also confirmed that his security detail was recalled about a week earlier.