(Trinidad Express) Six weeks after the Sunday Express sent Attorney General John Jeremie a written request for comment on reports of behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to get Dansam Dhansook to withdraw his bribery accusations against two high-ranking government ministers, Jeremie expressed the view that this newspaper was in possession of classified information and should be charged for “perverting and/or attempting to pervert the course of public justice.”
In private correspondence sent to the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey Henderson, on January 11, 2006, Jeremie said the information obtained by the Sunday Express in late 2005 had a “very narrow circulation” and was based on confidential information related to an Integrity Commission investigation.
“I am of the opinion that there could well be a basis for criminal charges to be laid against both Mr Dhansook, on the one hand, and the Express newspapers and Ms (Camini) Marajh on the other, for perverting and/or attempting to pervert the course of public justice,” said Jeremie, who accused then DPP Henderson of leaking confidential information related to criminal investigations to the media. A charge Henderson has categorically denied.
In a sharp exchange of hostilities, Jeremie accused DPP Henderson of leaks to the media, refusal to appoint government’s choice of counsel in high-profile criminal trials and of issuing grants of immunity to whistle-blowers who turn State’s evidence.
Henderson, in his list of counter-accusations drawn up against the incumbent attorney general, complained of interference in the criminal justice system, Jeremie’s control over the investigative powers of the police Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB) and the threat of criminal proceedings being compromised by the political aim of a seemingly very political attorney general.
Private correspondence obtained by the Sunday Express details a blow-by-blow account of hostilities traded between the two. In the Jeremie letter of January 11, 2006, he noted: “I continue to be extremely concerned over the porous nature of security at the Office of the DPP, which has seen several leaks of sensitive material with a narrow circulation, and sometimes, which is only in the possession of your office.”
He pointed to a security report of the telephone logs obtained for the Office of the DPP and of one conversation between then director Henderson and Express reporter Marajh lasting some 15 minutes.
“What Counsel (Karl Hudson-Phillips, QC) was not aware of was the fact that your office, too, might have been involved in publication of the material (I did not divulge the content or the fact of the security report to Counsel). I reiterate that I only discovered that Mr Dhansook, who as far as I am aware, is a member of the party in government, might have been the beneficiary of a grant of immunity from prosecution after I read this in the same newspaper – The Express.”
The attorney general complained that he considered it “entirely untenable that I should have to depend on the media for such critical and sensitive information while I remain the person with ultimate responsibility to the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. In the circumstances, I hereby issue a formal direction (Formal Direction No. 1) to the following effect, pursuant to my powers under section 76 (2) of the Constitution.
“The DPP should, in every reference from the Integrity Commission, ensure that confidential information in his possession is not revealed to the media before criminal prosecutions are brought. Further, I should like to remind you that Senator Robin Montano has posed the question as to why Dhansook has not been charged. It is not inconceivable that this question will find itself onto the Order Paper of Parliament in due course, and I will be called to provide an answer to it.”
Jeremie said that based on the known facts and on the advice of Hudson-Phillips, I shall have very few options as to precisely how I should answer this question. In all of the circumstances, I hereby issue a general and formal direction (Formal Direction No.2), pursuant to my powers under section 76 (2) of the Constitution to the following effect:
‘The grant of immunity from prosecution in respect of persons in public life as defined by the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 should not in any case be finalised and/or issued to the proposed beneficiary of the grant without prior approval of the attorney general.’
“I am constrained to issue this direction in the light of the following circumstances. As you are aware, the Office of the Attorney General interfaces with investigating agencies and, in some cases, coordinates the investigation of certain corrupt or questionable transactions. By law, the ACIB falls within the portfolio of the attorney general.”
The Jeremie letter continued: “It is, therefore, not unlikely that in the course of any prosecution, the Office of the Attorney General may possess material in respect of which your office, as an office in the Ministry of the Attorney General, should be made aware in arriving at a prosecution decision or in respect of a decision to grant immunity.” He said he rejects categorically Henderson’s proposition that he sought to minimise his (Jeremie’s) involvement because of the fact that “cabinet colleagues of mine were likely to be the subject of enquiry. As you know, the Office of the Attorney General traces its roots to that of the Kings Advocate of 400 years ago in the United Kingdom.
“The office,” he said, “is partly political and partly judicial. The Office of the DPP was only established in this country some 25 years ago by the Republican Constitution. I have, by this letter, issued two general and formal directions to you. I should take this opportunity to remind you of another, which I trust you have not forgotten. Counsel external to the Office of the DPP may only be retained by the Attorney General.”
He closed by saying that: “For the moment, I am prepared to let these matters rest. For the future, I propose to develop general systems and reporting and accountability which are consistent with our respective constitutional roles and reactive to the new and stringent demands placed on the State to conduct prosecutions in a more expeditious and efficient manner by the host of recently-enacted legislation.”
Henderson, now a High Court judge, responded on March 27, 2006, that: “I wish to confirm my earlier conversation with you and place on the record my categorical denial that I leaked to the media details of the Integrity Commission investigation into the allegations made by Mr Dhansook. Regarding the Sunday Express article entitled ‘Witness for Dhansook’, I first learnt about the existence of such a witness through that article.
“Regarding the publication of the legal advice submitted by Hudson-Phillips, QC, and Peter Thornton, QC, I categorically deny providing these opinions or any part, thereof, to the media. I most certainly did not leak this information and, therefore, I do not need to be reminded of my duty to confidentiality. I refer also to the TV6 newscast, which reported that I received the Desalcott report. At the time of the newscast, I had only received an e-mail summary, and it was not until the following day that I received the (Bob) Lindquist report. I wish to assure you that the Office of the DPP is not porous.”
On the power of the DPP to grant immunity, Henderson said this: “I have read the very careful opinion of Sir Godfrey Le Quesne. While I have the very greatest respect for the views of Sir Godfrey, his written opinion cannot be used as an authority for a proposition of law, a position you appear to have taken. In my view, the relevant law is to be found in the Constitution, the supreme law of Trinidad and Tobago and in the decision given by Bereaux J in Dhanraj Singh vs the Attorney General. That decision helpfully provides guidance on this very issue of immunity.”
Henderson closed by noting: “I am bound to say that in the exercise of my powers and duties under section 90 of the Constitution, I must be guided by the decision in Dhanraj Singh.”
