The case of the allegation of rape made against the Commissioner of Police, Mr Henry Greene has given rise to various perspectives and concerns including one by attorney at law, Mr Neil Aubrey Boston that Mr Greene was being subjected to a trial by the press. From the outset it should be stated that Mr Boston’s concerns are completely misplaced and inappropriate considering the point at which the media began reporting on the case.
It must be remembered that the media only pursued the matter of the allegations when the complainant contacted them. Up to that point, based on her recounting of the matter, the complainant professed to have been scared by the threats issued to her, by the unwillingness of certain persons to entertain any complaint by her against the accused and by unacceptable approaches to her by persons in the police and government hierarchy to have whatever was the matter hushed up. The truth of her contentions has to be determined via an investigation and perhaps in a court of law. If, however, any aspect of her qualms was verified then she would have had good reason to be wary of seeking recourse first in the usual channels particularly since the complaint pertained to the head of the police force.
The public is well aware that the police force lacks the independence and credibility to professionally address an allegation of the seriousness raised by the complainant and at the level of the hierarchy it is directed to. The public would also be well aware that many serious matters have been presented to the police regarding their own and the outcomes have been quite unsatisfactory; the course of justice having been perverted by various means. The horrific torture of the teenager on the West Demerara stands out and not long ago serious questions were raised about the conduct of the West Demerara commander in relation to a fatal shooting at the Stabroek Market. What was the police’s answer to this matter? The standard procedure perfected by the previous government to avoid embarrassment. Remove the person from the position and be done with the matter. However, the questions remain and it is that type of police track record and the imagery of the blue wall of silence that pervades and influences the conduct of complainants like the one in this case.
And yet Mr Boston might not have had reason to complain had the Commissioner done what is expected of Commissioners in open, democratic societies which place great stock on upholding the public trust and ensuring a gleaming purity about it. The moment that the Minister of Home Affairs had become aware of the complaint and having assessed its credibility he should have asked the Commissioner to step aside to permit an investigation. Even before this, the Commissioner himself should have stepped down to enable the probe as opposed to going on leave. Instead what followed was the typical `avoid and pretend unawareness’ when questions were first asked after the complainant went public on TV. As more and more details of the matter were released including a telephone number there was no other option but for the police commissioner to leave office so as to improve the prospects of an adequate and credible investigation. Even then the explanation and manner of the Commissioner’s departure were unacceptable.
It was President Ramotar who told GINA on December 17 that the Commissioner had asked for leave following the complaint and that he had acceded to the request. It would appear that the government had no plan to move on the matter and that Mr Greene was calling all the shots. The President also said on December 17 that he had asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to seek external assistance for the investigation.
As of today’s date, the matter still remains in a most unsatisfactory state. The recourse to external investigators for an independent probe was welcome but had the patina of flattering to deceive as local law enforcement has travelled this road before. Promises to seek external policing help as in the Sash Sawh, Lindo Creek and Sheama Mangar cases have resulted in months and years of exasperating inanities from the police force and the government as to why there has been no progress. Will this investigation crawl and go in circles? Given the present circumstances and the new government, it is unlikely that such a merry go around can be sustained particularly as the subject of the complaint is the Top Cop and the credibility of the force could be irretrievably harmed by its improper handling. However, stranger things have happened and silence and time have the habit in this country of collaborating to determine outcomes.
Mr Boston’s missive of December 21 in the Stabroek News is deserving of further comment. He makes bold to state “In as much that the Commissioner has not been charged to date, the common law has long recognized that adverse pre-trial publicity can prejudice a fair trial.” He then cited several rulings by Lord Diplock.
His Diplockian references notwithstanding, Mr Boston failed to distinguish between the right of the media to a fair and piercing investigation of a matter implicating the Police Commissioner of the country. In Mr Boston’s framework there is no role for investigative media reportage. The reference to adverse pre-trial publicity can only properly refer to circumstances where a trial has been set in motion by virtue of a charge being brought with the consequential expectation that sub judice would be respected. The matter was nowhere near there and is still not there up to now. Surely if a preliminary inquiry was underway the media would not be reporting any evidential material. Mr Boston having attacked the media must surely have laboriously perused its mainstream coverage of PIs and High Court trials and gleaned the deference that the media displays in the coverage of these cases.
What the media, in this case, was not shying away from and should never, was in ensuring that the complaint was seriously addressed and if merited that it should be given a fair chance to be heard. As said above this was even more vital in this case because of who the complaint was lodged against and the general ineffectiveness and lack of credibility of the police force in addressing these matters.
Though perhaps unintended, Mr Boston’s complaint came across as attempting to debar the media from being inquisitive and from fearlessly pursuing the cause of all and sundry and particularly when ranged against the powerful and influential. His conceptualizing of the work of the fourth estate seeks to limit it even as he expands the jurisdiction of the courts in matters where no proper investigation has been done let alone a charge brought.
Ideally, serious allegations against the Commissioner should trigger Article 225 of the Constitution. A tribunal can then be appointed and it can determine the matter. This would have required either the Prime Minister or the Chairman of the Police Service Commission referring this issue to the President followed by the appointment of a tribunal. Why this was not done is unclear and detracts from the seriousness with which this matter should be handled.
