Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar may be blindsided by a new report filed by former national security minister Gary Griffith with the police, in which he names three of her Cabinet ministers in the chain of events that were set off by Police Complaints Authority director David West’s involvement in a civil matter between former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and Opposition Leader Dr. Keith Rowley.
The Sunday Guardian learned that Griffith filed the new report with the police investigating witness-tampering allegations against Ramlogan, arising out of the civil matter, on Friday. In it, he alleges Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, Labour Minister Errol McLeod and Communications Minister Vasant Bharath were present during a meeting he attended at her office in St Clair on January 29, while she met with the rest of Cabinet in a nearby room.
Asked if she was aware of the latest development yesterday via a text message, Persad-Bissessar texted a simple “no.” But the Sunday Guardian learned yesterday that the new report describes the impromptu meeting between Griffith, Bharath, Moonilal and McLeod on January 29 and states that neither Moonilal nor McLeod made any contribution in the meeting, but would have witnessed the discussions between Bharath and Griffith.
The impromptu meeting is among four which occurred at the Office of the Prime Minister on the said day (January 29) while the rest of Cabinet met in another room, Griffith’s statement claims.
The report also contains copies of text messages between Griffith and Bharath in the days after it was revealed that the former was listed as a key witness in West’s statement alleging that Ramlogan used the PCA job as an inducement to him to withdraw his statement in support of Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley, in a defamation lawsuit brought by Ramlogan against Rowley.
Griffith backed up West’s statement, alleging that Ramlogan had contacted him (Griffith) asking that he contact West to find out whether he had withdrawn that statement. Griffith has maintained, however, that he did not know the contents of the statement the former attorney general was referring to when he delivered the message to West at Ramlogan’s behest.
Text message evidence
One of the texts included in the report, allegedly from Bharath to Griffifth, asks Griffith to consider whether his “partners would believe that he did not know what statement the AG was referring to.” That text allegedly came after Griffith began to defend his stance on the matter in the media after public furore over the allegations against Ramlogan by West.
The Sunday Guardian also learned that Griffith is weighing his legal options against Bharath over a press statement Bharath issued last Sunday, the day before Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar announced that both Griffith and Ramlogan had resigned.
Bharath, in that media release, dismissed reports that Griffith was being “pressured to withdraw a witness statement” during the Cabinet meeting on January 29. Bharath then accused Griffith of compromising the integrity of Cabinet “without any clear or rational reason.” Both Griffth and Ramlogan were fired the following Monday by Persad-Bissessar during a public address to the nation in which she also reshuffled her Cabinet.
Those close to Griffith are now wondering, if Griffith was removed for being listed as a witness in a police investigation how the PM will treat with this new development.
Bharath wary of media leaks
Contacted for comment yesterday, Bharath said he was more concerned that details of a police investigation were being ventilated in the media. He did not comment or express any concern that he was named in Griffith's police statement, instead saying that it “is a matter of grave concern” that the media had copies of the police report.
“I would hate to think that someone is leaking documents from police files to the media. To do so would be at best mischievous and at worst, intended to corrupt any investigation that police may deem proper,” Bharath said. Bharath said that it was in the public’s interest to let police matters proceed without “unauthorised interference by third parties.”
“With this in mind, I believe that the proper investigation of the allegations you have raised would be best served by reserving comment until such time as the matter may be investigated by the persons authorised to do so,” Bharath said.