The case of police Detective Sergeant Dion Bascom has so many convolutions it is hard for the public to keep up. At the heart of the matter, however, are the allegations made by Mr Bascom relating to a cover-up in the Ricardo Fagundes murder investigation, as well as the report from the Regional Security System which found no evidence of this.
But the issue has expanded to include defamation suits; cybercrime charges against Mr Bascom; a private criminal charge filed against the Head of CID, Mr Wendell Blanhum which was discontinued by the DPP; a Police Legal Advisor being temporarily remanded; and the DPP requesting the acting Chancellor reassign the hearing in which he appeared to a different magistrate.
If all of this is enough to put the public’s head in a spin, the matters involved do not provide answers to questions which remain in respect of the central issues. Is it indeed the case that the RSS has satisfactorily disposed of all the allegations made by Sergeant Bascom as the government has maintained? The public cannot come to any reasonable conclusion on that question until the Ministry of Home Affairs makes the RSS report available, and that it is declining to do.
In a letter dated September 23, Minister of Home Affairs Robeson Benn informed Attorney Nigel Hughes that he could not be supplied with a copy as he had requested. He told the attorney, “Please be advised the RSS report relating to the ongoing investigations to which you referred was produced as a result of an inquiry initiated by His Excellency, Dr Irfaan Ali and that report remains confidential.”
Well this is something of a surprise, since the President himself had suggested otherwise. He told Stabroek News last month: “Once that report is completed and tabled … then I will urge the police to share the findings of the report.” Neither the police nor the Ministry listened to him very carefully, it appears, so it has to be asked why they are withholding the report despite his undertaking to the contrary. What is it, everyone will want to know, they are trying to hide, since if there is nothing to hide then there is no need to keep the report sealed.
Is it, perhaps, that they recognise it contains gaps or assumptions which would invite criticism, and so to make the matter go away they insist it has been investigated and there is no more to say? In the meantime, they proceed with the cybercrime cases against Mr Bascom, and hope that all the other associated matters function as a distraction where the public is concerned.
What the Ministry has done is give its own account of what the report contains. With regard to the terms of reference for the RSS, it has said that the main objectives were to determine whether the GPF had investigated the killing of Mr Fagundes effectively; to establish whether there was any evidence to indicate wrongdoing by Detective Super-intendent Mitchell Caesar and Inspector Nigel Stephens as alleged by Mr Bascom; and to review the investigation of the case by the GPF and actions taken by the investigating officers.
The man whom the RSS sent to assist in this investigation was a former Detective Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police, who was not named. The Ministry said that the review stated the allegations that Detective Superintendent Caesar and Inspector Stephens attempted to cover up the killing of Mr Fagundes “were hearsay having no provenance.” Furthermore, the report as relayed by the Ministry went on to cast doubt on Mr Bascom’s credibility in the same way the police had done after the allegations first went public. There were references to his arrest at a location where illegal drugs were found during the course of a CANU operation, and that subsequent to that he made further allegations and personal demands. The timing of these, the Ministry said, caused one to question his veracity.
Then there was the matter of him living in furnished property in Essequibo rent free, courtesy of an Essequibo businessman and gold trader for whom he provided security services. This was in direct contravention of the Police Act, said the Ministry, although it might be noted that the Force has been turning a blind eye, or at the worst, actively permitting extra private security employment on the part of its members for a long time.
As for the main issue that the GPF had tried to cover up the homicide of Mr Fagundes, the Ministry pointed to the fact that the Force had “diligently sought Regional and International assistance in solving this case”. It then went into some details and what it called inconsistencies in relation to the investigation of the case by the police in the first instance, ending with the conclusion that it was the opinion of the reviewing officer that the Force had done extensive work into the unlawful killing. “There is no evidence to suggest that there was any attempt to cover-up this case and there is also no evidence of corrupt practices as alleged by Sgt. Bascom,” the Ministry said.
As said earlier, if that is so, why not release the report? But there are other problems with the review itself. As Mr Hughes has pointed out, how could incontrovertible conclusions be arrived at if Sergeant Bascom was never interviewed? And he definitely wasn’t interviewed. Even if the Ministry and police hierarchy did not want him to give evidence to the reviewing officer, surely that officer himself should have insisted on it if he wanted to produce something credible. It is standard practice to interview all witnesses, including an accuser, in any serious investigation. Could it be that he really didn’t take the exercise too seriously? Or that he did not have enough background on the history of corruption in the GPF, and took too much for granted when given information by senior officers?
A healthy scepticism about everything an investigator hears is necessary in a case of this kind, which is not the same thing as to say that corruption was actually involved in this instance.
Mr Hughes also referred to the accusation on the part of the Ministry that Mr Bascom had only made his allegations because he had been arrested. He claimed, however, that his client had notified several high-ranking officials, including the Minister of Home Affairs about difficulties associated with the Fagundes murder investigation months before going public. Since he was never interviewed, the reviewing officer was in no position to know about this or follow up on it.
The allegations in this case were so momentous, the police hierarchy should want the matter fully ventilated. In a case like this it is not enough to do a credible investigation, it must also be seen to be credible. The allegations will linger as long as the report is not made public, and depending on its quality, they may linger thereafter as well. But first things first: Mr Benn should release the report.
