THE credibility of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), David Ramnarine, was once again placed under the microscope with him being accused of not only trying to gain political points, but misleading President David Granger on the progress of the investigation that had been launched by the Guyana Police Force (GPF) into the alleged assassination plot.

On Friday, Ramnarine, who is currently acting as the Commissioner of Police, took the stand for the third time and was grilled by Attorney, Glenn Hanoman, as the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged plot to assassinate the President and the Police handling of the matter continues.
Hanoman is representing substantive Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud.
In his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Police, Ramnarine on March 30, 2017 at 08:00hrs, briefed President Granger on the report of the alleged assassination plot and the progress of the investigation.
In putting a series of questions to Ramnarine, Hanoman suggested that the acting commissioner of police was ill-prepared to brief the President and may have misled him in the process.
Ramnarine, in his response, had told the Commission, headed by retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Paul Slowe, that at the time of his briefing with President Granger, only a single statement had been taken, but Persaud’s Attorney begged to differ.

OUTRAGEOUS
“Let me suggest to you that you went and give the President false information on the 30th March,” Hanoman said as he grilled Ramnarine. In response, the attorney was told that the suggestion was not only false but “outrageous.”
But Hanoman did not stop there. In a bid to make his case, he pointed to the evidence, reminding the acting commissioner of police that the Commission was presented with a log of all activities since the initiation of the investigation by the Police Force.
“I have evidence before me that statements had been taken from three different persons by the time you went to brief the President. Three different persons had given statements and so when you went to the President you misled him,” Hanoman stated.
“I didn’t mislead the President,” the Acting Commissioner of Police maintained at a time when he was reminded that as of 08:00hrs on March 30, 2017, the time of the brief, statements were taken from Andriff Gillard, Nizam Khan and Steven Persaud. But, despite being confronted with this information, Ramnarine held firm to his position.
During that “private” meeting with President Granger, Ramnarine told the Commission that he was instructed by the President, in his capacity as acting commissioner of polic to compile a report but that had proven to be difficult because the statement taken by the complainant, Andriff Gillard, was poorly written and had to be typed.
As such, when the substantive commissioner of police returned to office on April 1, 2017, the report had not been completed. Questioned by Hanoman if he felt that he was the “go-to” person in the Force for the President, Ramnarine responded in the negative, maintaining that he was acting in the capacity of commissioner of police.

COMMISSIONER BRIEFTED
Upon his return, Persaud was briefed on the report and the need to have it submitted to the President to which he committed to do. However, after meeting with Persaud, Ramnarine called the President’s aide-de-camp (ADC) Colonel Abrahams and informed him that he was no longer compiling the report.
But his reason for calling the President’s ADC was also called into question, with Hanoman suggesting that it was the responsibility of the substantive commissioner of police to inform the President that he had returned to duty and would have completed the report initiated by Ramnarine.
“Now, look, I am trying to understand you and your motives,” Hanoman said as he put a series of questions to Ramnarine.
In response, the acting commissioner of police said it was a matter of discipline and was not intended to undermine the substantive commissioner.
“It was the discipline of the organisation that requires that out of respect for his Excellency, and me in my capacity as commissioner at the time, it would require me indicating through his ADC that commissioner had resumed duty,” Ramnarine posited.
While he was still being cross-examined, Ramnarine told the Commission that in his capacity as acting commissioner of police, he spoke to Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum on the seriousness of the matter.

According to Ramnarine, upon hearing of the report filed by Gillard against the accused Nizam Khan, he told the crime chief “to spare no effort and… to oversee the investigation.”
Hanoman posited that Ramnarine’s “instructions” despite the fact that Blanhum and his team at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had already initiated the investigation and was being supervised by the former.
“The crime chief was already supervising this investigation at the time you told him to supervise it,” Hanoman suggested to Ramnarine and he responded in the affirmative.

IT WAS NECESSARY
“So there was absolutely no need for you to say supervise the investigation,” Hanoman added, but was told by the acting commissioner of police that there was a need.
Again it was put to Ramnarine that the only reason he had given the “instruction” was to impress certain persons by showing them that he had a personal interest in the matter.
“The instruction was ‘crime chief I know that you were already supervising the investigation but I am telling you to supervise it’,” Hanoman posited, emphasising that Ramnarine not give any specific instructions but rather “platitudinous things”.
Ramnarine’s decision not to defend the police when they were accused of being “lethargic” in their investigation of the case was also called into question. He said at the time the statement was made about the tardiness of the police, he could not have defended it.
Additionally, on Friday, Hanoman made a second request to question Ramnarine on a personal problem he may have with the commissioner of police and the crime chief but it was not allowed by Slowe.

During his second appearance at the CoI, Hanoman had 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 what 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. And as such, that line of questioning was disallowed.
Next Wednesday, the police legal adviser, retired Justice Claudette Singh will appear before the Commission as the investigation continues.