I will not lie about what happened

The following is the continuation of the affidavit of Geoffrey Henderson, Director of Public Prosecutions, which was published in yesterday’s issue of Newsday. The remainder of the affidavit states:

11. The Chief Justice telephoned me again at about 2.30 pm. He told me that he had been in contact with Mr Russell Martineau SC who would look after his interests. He also said he had been in touch with Mr Dennis Gurley, the Chairman of the Guardian Newspaper, who was at the time in Tennessee. He told me that a journalist named Judy Raymond wrote the article and that she was wrong to attempt to publish such a story without first checking with any of the persons involved. He said that her letter of resignation would be expected by Monday morning. The Chief Justice told me that he was travelling to London that evening and asked if I had sent out the letter. I told him not yet but that I would send out a letter.

12. Having regard to my concerns for the effect which the proposed article would have on the Narayansingh inquiry and the administration of justice, I decided to write a letter expressing these concerns but which did not deny the fact that the meetings were held, that they concerned the Narayansingh case and that  they were improper. I was in somewhat of a quandary, because if I singled out for denial the allegations of discrimination, racism and subornation that meetings were held between me and the Chief Justice and that he had been critical of my decision to prosecute Dr Narayansingh.

Although I thought the meetings to be improper, I nevertheless was not then prepared to make these meetings and their content public. Accordingly, I wrote a letter which focused on the impact on the administration of justice and complained about defamation without identifying who could be defamed or in respect of which allegation. I did not say that the proposed article was untrue in any respects. I did consider the proposed article to be true was untrue in any respects. I did consider the proposed article to be true as it related to the meetings between the Chief Justice and me. A true copy of my letter dated December 31 2004 and captioned “ASP Nadir Khan Vijay Narayansingh & Ors.” is now produced and shown to me and attached hereto and marked “GH1.”

13. Before I finalised the terms of the letter I called the Attorney General to get his views on the wording of the letter. The Attorney General told me quite emphatically that I must not lie. The fact is that improper meetings were held with the Chief Justice at which the Narayansingh case was discussed and the Chief Justice did “haul me over the coals.” The Chief Justice’s suggestion of a blanket denial was therefore out of the question. However, since the allegations of racism against me and the other members of department and the allegation of subornation were untrue and defamatory, we agreed that I would make some reference to that in the letter. We also agreed that the main thrust of the letter should be the impact which the publication of the article would have on the administration of justice. We agreed  that my general approach should be to appeal to the newspaper’s better judgement.

14. Later that afternoon the Chief Justice called me to ask if I sent out a letter. I told him that I did. He asked me what I wrote. I told him that I wrote that the article could have an impact on the pending preliminary inquiry and could bring the administration of justice into disrepute. He asked me if I denied that the meetings took place and I simply replied that I wrote that they should refrain from publishing the article.

15. I visited Justice John’s home on the night of December 31, 2004, and not on the night of January 1 2005 as Justice John alleges in paragraph nine and ten of his affidavit. I cannot now recall who suggested that we meet at his home but I do recall that in an earlier telephone call between us he said words to the effect that he wanted to call the Chief Justice in London to keep him up-to-date. This was the purpose of the meeting, not my concern over the proposed article. I told Justice John I would visit him sometime later either before or after I went jogging. At that time I was in training for the local marathon.

I arrived at Justice John’s home sometime around 10.45 pm. I had just completed a 12 mile run. My clothes were still wet with perspiration. It was late and I  wanted to get home. It was New Year’s eve. I told Justice John that I had sent a letter to the Guardian and that I heard that the article was no longer going to be published. We spoke generally about the effect that such an article would have on the administration of justice and I again expressed the concerns which I had about the effect the publication would have on the pending case. We also spoke generally about how difficult a year 2004 was. I subsequently left for home. Justice John did not provide the comfort he alleges he did in paragraph ten of his affidavit.

16. On Saturday January 1 2005, I spoke to Dana Seetahal who  writes a column for the Sunday Guardian. She informed me that a  “watered down” version of the article was to be published the next day. I later called Justice John and I told him that it was likely that the Sunday Guardian would publish a watered down version of the original story. I repeated my concerns regarding the pending criminal proceedings and how the article could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

17. On Sunday January 2, 2005 I read in the Sunday Guardian a report published at page three entitled “Narayansingh Murder  Inquiry, Racism charge against Staff of DPP’s Office.” A true copy of the said article is attached to the Chief Justice’s Affidavit as “SS-3.” The article was different in material respects to that which was read out to me on December 31 2005.

18. Sometime during the early afternoon of Monday January 3, 2005, I received a call from Justice John. He asked me if I was asked  about the meetings with the Chief Justice what would I say and I replied, “I would say, ‘no comment.’” He told me that on something such as this I must have a comment. I told him that, if  asked, I would not lie about what happened.

19. On the morning of Tuesday, January 4, 2005, the Attorney General telephoned me and asked if I would attend a meeting with Justice Hamel-Smith and himself to discuss the article. I attended as requested. I told Justice Hamel-Smith that I met with the Chief Justice and that we discussed the Narayansingh case and that at one of the meetings the Chief Justice said he was addressing me as the Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission. I told him that the meetings left me feeling uncomfortable. I did not get to provide very much detail because Justice Hamel-Smith cut me short saying that he was very concerned about what he was hearing and that I should say nothing further. He thought the meetings were highly improper. He suggested that I should get legal advice.

The Attorney General also said what had transpired when he met with the Chief Justice. I recall Justice Hamel-Smith at one point suggesting that we put what happened in writing in case we needed to speak about these matters at a later stage. The Attorney General also said that he had briefed the Prime Minister about the article and the meetings with the Chief Justice, but that the Prime Minister said that he felt that this was an internal matter for the Judiciary to resolve. Justice Hamel-Smith expressed the view that while that might be so, the difficulty was that the matter involved allegations against the Chief Justice and the Constitution set up a mechanism as to how such ought to be investigated. He drew our attention to section 137 of the Constitution and to the fact that it was the Prime Minister who had the responsibility to deal with allegations against a Chief Justice.

20. On the morning of January 5, 2005, I met with the Attorney General and Senior Counsel. Senior Counsel advised on the procedure to be followed under section 137. He said that for the Prime Minister to consider whether section 137 of the Constitution should be invoked, he would need to consider written statements setting out the complaint.

21. I returned to my chambers. At that time, Sir Timothy Cassell QC was working in my chambers on an unrelated matter. I consulted with him on the issue and in particular whether I should provide a statement in contemplation of section 137 proceedings under the Constitution. Having considered the aforementioned section, he advised me that I was duty bound to give a statement.

22. On January 10 2005 I gave the Attorney General a statement dated January 10 2005 together with several attachments so that he could forward same to the Prime Minister. As I said earlier, a true copy of that statement is attached to the Chief Justice’s  affidavit as exhibit “SS-5.” I later learnt that a copy of my statement was passed to the Chief Justice for his comments.

23. On the afternoon of February 8, 2004 (Carnival Tuesday) I was at home, when I received a call from Justice John. By this time, it was public knowledge that the Prime Minister had invoked section 137 of the Constitution. Justice John said words to the effect that I was still young and could go places and that the Chief Justice only had two more years to go until retirement. He suggested that as big men and principal office holders we should sit down and work things out. He told me that he understood from Justice Mark Mohammed that the Chief Justice really put pressure on me and that he had crossed the line. He went on to say that as big men we could move on. I said words to the effect that a process had been commenced and that was where the matter stood. I also told Justice John among other things, that I felt it had gone beyond a private reconciliation and that I was hearing that the Chief Justice was suggesting that I had made improper approaches to him. Justice John told me that if things continued, it was going to get nasty and there would be things said which held implications for me and my family life.

24. On March 8, 2005, the appeal of Shawn Parris v the State came up for hearing before the Court of Appeal with Justice John as the President of the panel. Shawn Parris was the main witness in the Narayansingh murder inquiry and the man convicted of killing Chandra Narayansingh, the former wife of Dr Narayansingh. It became known to my office just prior to the said hearing that Justice John had accompanied Dr Narayansingh and his second wife Seromanie on an eco-vacation to Guyana sometime in April 2004. Justice John never disclosed these facts nor did he offer to recuse himself. Accordingly, I had to give instructions to Counsel appearing on behalf of the State in the matter to invite him to recuse himself. The said application was heard in Chambers and on the next occasion Justice John was not part of the panel.

25. On Tuesday April 5, 2005, Justice John called me and said he  would like to see me. I declined the invitation and we did not meet. Sworn to at 112 Henry Street, Port-of-Spain this 9th day of May, 2005

YACUB MOHAMMED
Commissioner of Affidavits
Filed on behalf of the Respondent herein: Geoffrey Henderson (1) 09/05/05