Dear Editor,
I refer to an article published in Kaieteur News on Saturday, 3rd June, 2017 captioned, ‘Benjai’s lawyers mull going to CCJ over “lax” police investigation’. It must first be noted that a large portion of the article embodied the contents of a letter dated the 23rd May 2017, that was authored by Attorney-at- Law Eusi Anderson and addressed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
At the outset, the contents of the letter are a misrepresentation of the facts; they are also highly misleading and an inference can be drawn that there may be an agenda to damage the image of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) by bringing it into disrepute locally, regionally and internationally. The reality of what transpired is quite the opposite of the fallacious story highlighted in the letter which was then published in the above-mentioned newspaper.
Such conduct sets a dangerous precedent and I must reiterate that the Laws of Guyana also make provisions for the protection of the image of organisations such as the Guyana Police Force as well as for the protection of the reputation and character of individuals, namely, the investigators who are assigned to this investigation against unsubstantiated allegations of there being a “purported ongoing investigation” and there being a “lax police investigation currently being pursued by the agents of the delinquent Member State”.
Strangely, no comment was solicited from the GPF before these fallacious allegations were published. If this was done from the inception, then the public would have been duly informed that an attorney-at-law by the name of Gideon McMaster, who was listed as one of the battery of lawyers representing Rodney Le Blanc, had engaged the Office of the Commissioner of Police on the said matter on the 18th April, 2017 via telephone and email. Included in the email received by the Office of Commissioner of Police, was a list of prepared questions regarding the status of the investigation and the progress made by the police relating to the apprehension of the two alleged suspects. This correspondence was answered by the investigators and sent through the Office of the Commissioner of Police to Attorney-at-Law Gideon McMaster on the 11th May, 2017 via email.
Contrary to Anderson’s assertions, this correspondence directly rejects the notion that there was ‘no investigation’ or that there is a ‘purported investigation’ being conducted into the incident which occurred on the night in question.
Anderson also erroneously stated that “the police seemed to have ignored the complaint on Khan and focused the investigation solely on De Abreu”. But this also is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The correspondence sent to Attorney McMaster on the 11th May, 2017, made it pellucid in the response to question three that Khan was arrested in relation to the incident by the police and after being interviewed, he furnished a statement to the investigators through his attorney-at-law.
Anderson further lamented that Maverick De Abreu was present in Court on the 12th May, 2017 and he was released the same day in the presence of members of the force, as though, “the wanted bulletin was not issued or did not exist.” Yet again this is a distortion of the facts in that Maverick De Abreu had surrendered to the police, and was promptly arrested after the wanted bulletin was issued in relation to this matter and a previous allegation of discharging a loaded firearm. He was interviewed and then subjected to confrontations with two witnesses. He was subsequently charged in relation to the latter matter where the investigation was completed. However, no charge has been filed as yet in relation to this matter since the investigation is still pending and awaiting the witness statements which Attorney McMaster indicated that he was in possession of since the 18th April, 2017.
The correspondence sent to Attorney McMaster requested that these witness statements be submitted to the investigators as soon as possible and an additional request was made for a detailed further statement from his client Rodney Le Blanc. However, to date no information has been forthcoming although the correspondence provided Mr McMaster with the email address and contact number of the investigating rank. As such, with the probe still ongoing, the file in relation to this matter was never submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions as was incorrectly posited by Attorney Anderson.
In closing, from the “oddities” of the contents of Anderson’s letter, it appears as though this battery of lawyers is suffering from a voltage deficiency as the information that was sent via email to Attorney McMaster since the 11th May, 2017 was clearly not communicated to Attorney Eusi Anderson for some reason best known to him. Added to that, it would appear as though the communication issues have persisted to date, as Mr Anderson has failed to correct the misinformation that has been made public.
Yours faithfully,
Wendell Blanhum
Crime Chief
