Singh followed precedent set by Achong

THE EDITOR: The reaction of Mr Emile Elias to the matter involving Dr Keith Rowley raised in Parliament by Mr Ganga Singh a week ago reminds me of another almost similar matter. According to a newspaper report Mr Elias not only acknowledged the authenticity of the documents and of course the veracity of its contents but stated that the documents had been stolen from his Tobago office sometime ago but he had only just (that day) discovered the theft. No doubt he reported the matter to the Tobago Police who are perhaps pursuing inquiries, which I hope will yield more positive results than the matter which I am about to recall. Two weeks before the last General Election the TV News at 7 pm showed Mr Lawrence Achong in possession of a number of Electoral Poll Cards, the property of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and enlisted for safe-keeping to the Elections and Boundaries Commission. According to Mr Achong (MP La Brea) the documents were given to him by “an Indian man from Aranjuez.”

Three events followed:
1) Chairman of the EBC Mr Oswald Wilson was so alarmed at the news that he immediately (during the news broadcast) telephoned the then Commissioner of Police to whose attention he drew Mr Achong’s statements and asked for an urgent police enquiry.

a) Within an hour of attending the Commissioner’s offices the next morning, Mr Wilson launched an internal inquiry and was able to identify the documents and the person to whom they were entrusted for confidential field work.
b) That person apparently informed the inquiry that she had “misplaced the documents” but was afraid to report the matter since she feared dismissal. She was suspended immediately.
c) A copy of the report of the Internal EBC inquiry was sent to the Police Commissioner to aid in the police enquiry.

2) Mr Robin Montano who had also seen the news broadcast and had apparently conducted private enquires on his own called a news conference to give a legal opinion on the matter he being a lawyer of many years experience. His opinion:

a) If indeed the documents were “misplaced” (which seemed highly unlikely in the circumstances) then a reasonable conclusion would be that they were stolen (illegally removed) from the place where she left them by a person who was not authorised to do so. In such a case the charge is larceny.
b) Assuming Mr Achong is not the person who removed the documents, then without a proper explanation he may be guilty of either:
a) receiving stone property or;
b) handling stolen property
c) Accordingly in either of the above case the person found to be in possession of the documents is likely to face criminal charges.

3) Mr Achong enlarged his statement by saying that he will not identify the “Indian man” from whom he got the documents for fear of reprisals to the “Indian man” from UNC supporters.

In the result the public has never been informed of the result of the police enquiry (if there was any) and Mr Achong has certainly not been charged or perhaps he has not even been questioned by the police. That precedent has now been raised that any person charged with receiving stolen goods or having them in his possession can raise in his defence that he received the stolen property from a person whom he will not identify for fear of political or other reprisals from certain sources, and cite the Achong precedent in support.

And speaking of the failure of a person to identify his co-conspirator, how many of us noticed that in the vast litany of woes complained by Mr Basdeo Panday during his Budget speech was the fact that up to now our Director of Public Prosecutions has not yet had time to charge a police officer with conspiracy to defeat the course of justice in the freeing of two Barbadian fishermen in Tobago so long ago. Unless the DPP files these charges urgently he runs the risk of having his “independent status” called into serious question. After all, the police officer even went on national television and stated quite clearly that he would have had nothing to gain by acting independently in the matter. The name of the alleged co-conspirator has been named by a reputable English newspaper and repeated in our own Parliament. What more does the DPP want? Or the Commissioner of Police for that matter.

ATTA K O KUJIFE
Attorney-at-Law