ASSISTANT Commissioner of Police, David Ramnarine was on Friday accused of being malicious with his comments that the police investigation was poor into the alleged assassination of President David Granger.

Ramnarine who is acting as Police Commissioner took to the stand for the second time on Friday at the request of Glenn Hanoman, attorney representing substantive Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud. During his first testimony before the Commission, Ramnarine had said that investigations into the alleged plot was improperly done and may have been compromised by senior officers within the Force.
Ramnarine’s competence as an investigator was also subject to scrutiny, as it was disclosed that the Assistant Police Commissioner was never trained as a detective. While Ramnarine conceded that he has had no training as a detective, he dispelled suggestions made by Hanoman which suggested his utterances were filled with malice against Persaud and Crime Chief, Wendell Blanhum.
“Let’s get this clear, when you gave that opinion, it was not from the background of an expert investigator or from a man who has ever had any practical experience investigating,” suggested Hanoman. Ramnarine, however maintained that there was no need for him to give an opinion based on an investigative background. “It wasn’t required,” said the acting top cop.
“You understand the question? All I am saying to you is that when you offered your opinion it was not from the background of being an investigator, a detective or having received any specialised or expert training as an investigator,” stated Hanoman to whom Ramnarine concurred.

Hanoman continued, “Your opinion was told to this Commission because of a personal problem you have with the Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud and Crime Chief, Wendell Blanhum.” This suggestion was refuted by Ramnarine who said, “That is absolutely untrue.”
Persaud’s attorney then told Ramnarine that it was widely circulated in the press that both Persaud and Blanhum were alleging that he (Ramnarine) had interfered in a murder investigation for a friend. “It was widely reported in the press about the Rio (Night Club) shooting,” said Hanoman.
“Something was reported in the press, I do not recall reading in the press that it was I who obstructed the investigation,” noted Ramnarine. In September 2016, a 19 year-old, Ryan Sergeant, was fatally shot to his head while another man received gunshot wounds to his neck and torso following an argument outside of the night club.
“Your name may not have been mentioned, but you know it was you… you are not currently being investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for interfering in that investigation on behalf of a man named Saddiq Bobby Rasul?” asked Hanoman to which Ramnarine denied, while noting that the investigation was completed months ago.

Ramnarine said he knows of Rasul but made it clear that the man is “not his friend but a mere acquaintance”. He admitted knowing that Rasul has been accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a local bank.
It was during this line of questioning that Commissioner and retired Assistant Police Commissioner (APC), Paul Slowe, questioned the relevance of the question posed to Ramnarine. “I am not going to allow that line of questioning about Mr Bobby Rasul, as far as this inquiry is concerned. It has absolutely nothing to do with this inquiry, absolutely nothing,” said Slowe.
However, Hanoman in his argument said his line of questioning were relevant to the existing relationship between Commissioners of Police and doing favours for their friends. Hanoman made reference to Persaud requesting that his friend, Imran Khan, be released on self-bail because he had no money on March 29. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander sir,” stated Hanoman but Slowe maintained his position.
Hanoman then asked the acting top cop whether he is aware that Persaud had initiated several complaints against him while he acted as police commissioner. The attorney referenced the issuance of some 113 firearm licences as one of the complaints. In his defence Ramnarine made it clear that 70 of the licences issues were to security services, while others were replacements and the remainder granted to police officers and other persons by an authority above him.

He revealed that it was then Commander ‘A’ Division, Assistant Police Commissioner (APC), Clifton Hicken, who had formed the opinion that he issued the 123 licences in breach of the law. As a result, the substantive Police Commissioner referred the matter to the OPR for investigation. It was then revealed by Ramnarine that Persaud failed to provide the investigators (OPR) with access to the firearms department to conduct its own investigations.
“When the matter went for advice, the Police Legal Adviser, retired Justice Claudette Singh advised that if the investigator is not permitted to check the firearm records, what is there to contradict Mr. Ramnarine’s statement that he acted in accordance with the law and practice embedded in the Guyana Police Force (GPF) for the granting of firearm licences, and she also noted that the Commissioner had denied the investigators access to the records to compare against my story,” Ramnarine told the Commission.
Hanoman during cross-examination suggested that Ramnarine was angry about Persaud’s actions and decided to be malicious, but Ramnarine said, “I didn’t feel bad about these things. Obviously from a professional stand point, it surprised me that the Commissioner launched an investigation…Maybe I was upset… between surprised and probably disappointment.”

“…is that same upset mek you come and talk these things,” asserted Hanoman to which Ramnarine replied in the negative. “Not only that, you also think it would help your chance of becoming Commissioner of Police…is that so?, asked Hanoman to which Ramnarine responded, “This is very shocking to me,” while accepting that he’d like to be Commissioner of Police one day.
“The reason you are bad-talking Mr Persaud and Mr Blanhum is to say that ‘I would have left no stone unturned and I would have investigated the President and so on…you are sucking up to the powers that be in order to try and become the Commissioner,” declared Hanoman. “I am a professional. I believe in discharging my duties when I would have acted as Commissioner in keeping with the Constitution, the law and the Police Act,” stated Ramnarine in his defence. He noted that he would have done two promotional examinations.
“Let me suggest to you that you are more interested in promotion than proper investigation,” suggested the attorney to which Ramnarine replied, “I am interested in the conduct of a proper investigation.”
The acting Police Commissioner said he passed instructions to the Crime Chief to ensure that a proper investigation was done into the matter. He said, “This was too important a matter which involved the Head of State, and could not have been left without me emphasising to the Crime Chief such importance.” Ramnarine maintained that the allegation was not properly investigated and said he believes that the investigation should have proceeded with due diligence. He said during the initial phase of the investigation, the two statements were enough to scrutinise.
“Do you not agree with me that once you know that an investigation is going to take some time that it is senseless to keep somebody in custody for 72 hours?, asked Hanoman to which Ramnarine replied, “Not in the case of the gravity of the offence…I would have kept them in custody.” He said keeping Gillard in custody for miscreant of treason never crossed his mind.

The acting Top Cop said too that he never told Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan, or his designate that he believed the investigation was not properly investigated. He could not provide the Commission with a reason for withholding his opinion. “Let me suggest to you, you didn’t state your opinion because it was not formed initially,” said Hanoman, to which Ramnarine refuted stating, “It was formed initially.”
Meanwhile, the attorney after more than one hour of cross-examination of Ramnarine said he was unable to peruse Ramnarine’s entire evidence-in-chief thoroughly, and as such, sought permission to continue cross-examination after he familiarises himself properly with the statement. As such, Ramnarine will be recalled to testify before the Commission in the future. Hanoman had also asked the Commission to call Police Legal Advisor, retired Justice Claudette Singh, but his request was denied.