If it weren’t for the fact that the incident involving Sergeant Robert Pyle ended in such tragedy, the sequence of events leading up to the fatal crash in Carifesta Avenue on December 30 might have been termed a comedy of errors. The late sergeant who was attached to GDF military intelligence had just picked up his wife from a city hospital when he was contacted by an agent of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU). This officer was engaged in a stakeout of what he thought was Mr Winston Brassington’s house in Cowan Street, and had seen someone he thought was Mr Brassington’s daughter emerge from it in the company of a man. At this point it has been reported, he asked for Sergeant Pyle’s assistance.
It would seem that after entering their car the couple were approached by Mr Pyle, but afraid that this might be a kidnapping attempt, they managed to drive off, and were followed in hot pursuit by the Sergeant ‒ who still had his wife in his car ‒ and a second car apparently attached to SOCU. As everyone knows, this misconceived operation ended in the death of three people, two of them civilians with no direct connection to the intelligence services.
This whole exercise raises a number of questions, some of them of a disturbing nature. It would appear in the first place that SOCU had placed surveillance on the wrong house; their agents were watching the home of Mr Charles Ramson, a PPP/C member of parliament, and not that of NICIL head, Mr Winston Brassington. Furthermore, the lady who was identified as Mr Brassington’s daughter, was in fact Mr Ramson’s wife, and her companion was her brother.
When this newspaper spoke to a source close to Mr Brassington last Saturday, we were met with patent disbelief, since it was said that any intelligence service would know that the latter’s children do not live in this country. Yet here we had two intelligence services which not only did not know that simple fact, but did not know either exactly where Mr Brassington lived. The least that can be said is that this was an example of astonishing incompetence.
That the training of these officers appears well below par is also suggested by the fact that, as said above, Mrs Stacy Pyle was in the passenger seat of the Sergeant’s car when he was pursuing Mr Ramson’s relatives. Surely all security agencies will have rules about relatives – or any civilian, for that matter – unconnected with an investigation being taken along on a dangerous assignment. Was it that there are rules, but he ignored them, or is it that these have not been sufficiently clearly laid down? As it was, Mr Pyle could have let his wife out of the car in Cowan Street, where she would have been within easy walking distance of a taxi service. That he did not do so suggests, perhaps, a certain indiscipline, or if not, again, a lack of rigour in training, or both.
A more fundamental question, however, is whether the car pursuit was necessary in the first place, even supposing Sergeant Pyle had been chasing the person he thought he was chasing. A high speed chase can put any number of lives at risk, and should only be embarked on in unusual and clearly defined circumstances. What regulations and conventions does SOCU have in relation to this, or are they functioning within those established for the police force in general? If the latter, then why were these not followed – because one must assume they were not.
This newspaper was given to understand that 3,000 NICIL files had been taken in a SOCU raid, so it is difficult to imagine that there would have been any interest in Mr Brassington’s daughter unless in the context of some hypothesis that she might remove other documents. Even if, for the sake of argument, that had been the case, it would definitely not have warranted a high-speed chase and the placing of innocent lives at risk; there are other less dramatic as well as eminently legal ways to secure documents. If that was not the reason for the interest in Ms Brassington, then exactly what was it?
One presumes (although this might be a misplaced presumption) that some members of the police force have had a modicum of instruction in high-speed chases and the protocols which apply in such situations, but Sergeant Pyle was not a policeman. One suspects, therefore, he had had no training in this area, and was simply galvanized by enthusiasm and excitement to take some reckless and less than legal decisions.
But all of this does not confront the more profound questions of the relationship between SOCU and the GDF, and the propriety of members of the military being utilized in operations of this kind. SOCU was primarily set up to investigate suspected cases of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Dr Luncheon told the media last year that the unit would work alongside the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) to compile information, and as for staffing, the officers would be skilled investigators. Then AG Anil Nandlall added subsequently that they would come from law enforcement and include those with strong financial working backgrounds.
Leaving aside the fact that the investigators in this case did not seem very skilled, exactly how military intelligence fits into that framework has not yet been made clear to anyone, despite the fact that President David Granger was reported as saying that there had always been Joint Services collaboration between the Police Force and the GDF.
Whenever the army has assisted the police (and certain other state agencies) in the past, however, it has largely been in response to incidents involving violence at some level, or where there might be a potential for violence or where there are issues encompassing the maintenance of order; certainly not in relation to money laundering offences, which would not seem to call for the kind of skills which the military can bring to bear. Exactly what, therefore, are the protocols in place for the army to be brought in to work on a case such as that allegedly involving the monitoring of Mr Brassington’s family – or any SOCU case, for that matter? It cannot be a situation where SOCU simply calls up the GDF and asks for manpower, and then that is dispatched without further ado.
This is, however, the impression which is being conveyed, since the whole operation appears so casual. It might be observed that the head of SOCU is a former GDF Lieutenant-Colonel, who served in the army for thirty-four years. When Lt-Col Sydney James was first appointed to the post, he was also made an Assistant Commissioner of Police, because SOCU technically comes under the GPF, and its head would need police powers. Given his background, one is tempted to ask whether his army connections have not facilitated a more informal relationship with military intelligence than is healthy, either for his organization or for the country.
Whatever the case, it must be asked what military personnel are doing involving themselves in the surveillance of civilians, more particularly when those civilians are not suspected of violence in any shape, size or form? This is not a military dictatorship or a militarized state; it is supposed to be a democracy. Worse yet, what were military personnel doing placing the children of a civilian under surveillance? Have they lost all sense of what it means to function within a constitutional framework? The public can hardly be blamed for thinking that the involvement of military intelligence in the events which culminated in Carifesta Avenue sends ominous signals about the integrity of our supposedly liberal state.
However, it is not just the role of the military in this instance which is disquieting. One has to wonder too why SOCU considered it necessary to put Mr Brassington’s children under surveillance, when the police force, Stabroek News was told, knew that the head of NICIL was out of the country. It took seven months for the government to send him on leave – after he had gone on leave anyway – and now SOCU allegedly is trying to monitor his children? What on earth for? Since when did children become legitimate targets for investigative agencies where they have not committed any very serious crime? This is an utterly unacceptable mode of procedure in any open society.
Even surveillance on Mr Brassington himself by SOCU would have to be justified; the agency cannot believe it has the right to trample on people’s civil liberties whenever the mood takes it.
To date Assistant Commissioner James has been silent on the role SOCU played in the matter, and neither has Commissioner Seelall Persaud had anything to say, although he should have been fully briefed by now. (At a different level, the police have confirmed the report to Kitty Police Station of a car being trailed.) President Granger’s somewhat oblique comments indicate that SOCU was the agency which conceived the exercise and which requested assistance from military intelligence. The army for its part has spoken, but only to confirm that Sgt Pyle was engaged in a “legitimate operation” when he died.
Given the fact that these events have undermined public confidence in the state because of their implications of military interference in civilian matters, the public is owed a full account of what happened, including an explanation of how the decision came about to set up this operation, under what circumstances the army was asked to be involved, and who should take the ultimate responsibility for it. In the light of what happened, there should be consequences for those responsible. If the authorities are not open with the public in the very near future, then recourse to an independent probe would seem to be the way to proceed.
Furthermore, there has to be some public assurance that all the protocols for joint operations where SOCU specifically is concerned are being reviewed by a group of professionals, including lawyers with a human rights background, and made fit for purpose; and that training issues for the agency’s officers are also receiving what is clearly desperately needed attention. This government came into office promising a return to the rule of law; whatever this was, it was not the rule of law in operation.
