The admission by Police Commissioner Henry Greene in court documents that he had consensual sex with the woman accusing him of rape concerns government and in time could attract disciplinary action, Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon said.
“We are paying much more attention to that matter and its outcome. But I do agree that considerable attention would ultimately have to be paid to that aspect that you have raised”, Luncheon yesterday told reporters just one day after Greene successfully secured a High Court order barring the police from instituting a charge. Luncheon at the time was responding to questions on the issue during a post cabinet press briefing held at state house.
He said that “It (the admission) has been raised with the administration… I will admit that the focus has been on what would come out or what has actually arisen from the involvement of the DPP and the consideration of charges”.
Luncheon said that the terms and conditions of the commissioner’s contract remain unaltered since it was Greene who asked to be sent on leave.
“Remember that he wrote the President requesting to be sent on leave during the investigation. That did not ordinarily create conditions for terms and conditions to be altered. He’s on leave so he continues to enjoy the same terms and conditions as he would have been enjoying were he on the job”.
Greene outlined in court documents filed as part of his High Court application how he met the woman. He said that the woman met him at his office to discuss an extortion matter in which she was the accused and how they later met up at the Police Officers’ Mess, Eve Leary where they consumed beverages before going to a city hotel.
According to Greene, “we had consensual sexual intercourse. I never had a gun in my possession of the night of the 22nd, November 2011”. He went on to state that they then bought food at a Regent Street location before he took her to her East Coast Demerara home.
The allegation first surfaced in early December last year when the woman in the presence of her attorney Nigel Hughes recounted what had reportedly happened.
Later President Donald Ramotar instructed the Home Affairs Minister to seek external assistance to investigate the matter and several weeks later a team of Jamaican investigators arrived here. After interviewing the 34-year-old mother of two and Greene they left.
The file was then sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for advice but it was later sent back to the police who were instructed to further interview the woman. That was done and it was re-sent to the DPP.
Last Friday the DPP advised that a charge of rape be instituted against the Top Cop. However on Tuesday morning his lawyer filed a Notice of Motion seeking to bar the police from instituting the charge and quash the DPP’s advice to lay the charge. The application was based on insufficient evidence and the fact that the charge was “irrational, unreasonable, unfair, unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect.”
Justice Ian Chang later granted the application and made the case returnable for February 20.
Article 225
During an interview last month, Attorney General Anil Nandlall had said that given the nature of the allegations against Greene, there must be a recommendation from the DPP to charge him before there is any constitutional sanction.
Nandlall’s comments had come in the wake of criticisms that action against Greene under the constitution had not been proceeded with by the government.
Speaking to Stabroek News, Nandlall said that the nature of the allegations would be one of the considerations that would see criminal charges being brought prior to an application of the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution. “There must be some type of investigation before you activate Article 225,” said Nandlall. “Because it was a criminal matter the police were activated,” he explained.
Stabroek News, in an editorial on January 9th, had said that serious allegations against Greene should trigger Article 225, which caters for a tribunal to be appointed. “…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 a tribunal,” the editorial said.
However, Nandlall said that it was hasty for this newspaper to suggest that the constitutional action could be triggered on the basis of a mere allegation. He said that Article 225 is draconian in its effect and ought only to be activated upon sure foundations, as the persons who are affected by it are high constitutional office holders, whose offices enjoy security of tenure under the constitution.
Nandlall noted that the grounds for removal of office holders under Article 225 are the inability to discharge the function of the office, whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause whatsoever, or for misbehaviour. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the Commissioner, he said it is “excruciatingly plain” that for the purpose of the Article, the applicable ground would be misbehaviour.
But, he added, that to adhere to the principles of fairness, natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence, an investigation was necessary to determine whether or not there is a basis for the allegation.
“It is only when there is a finding of sufficient evidence of alleged misbehaviour by the investigations, that the question of removal from office arises in order to catalyse Article 225 into operation,” he said.
