LAWYERS representing the police and other interests at the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged plot to assassinate President David Granger assailed the testimonies of the complainant, saying that the accusation of a plan to kill the Head-of-State was a total fabrication.
But Canadian-based attorney, Selwyn Pieters said the police failed to conduct a proper investigation into the allegation and noted that the action of Police Commissioner, Seelall Persaud , in the matter demonstrated clearly that the force is somewhat dysfunctional. Pieters, who represented television journalist, Travis Chase, at the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) was making his closing submissions. Three other lawyers who participated in the CoI concluded that the allegation was a total fabrication. Lawyers, retired Chief Justice Ian Chang, Christopher Ram and Glenn Hanoman, all told the Paul Slowe-led Commission that the key complainant, Andriff Gillard’s story that he told to police on March 29, 2017, that Nizam Khan, his former friend allegedly offered to pay him $7M to kill President Granger was incredible and lack corroboration.

WEAKNESS
Meanwhile, it was Chang who commenced Friday’s closing submission and his presentation focused primarily on the weaknesses which appeared in Gillard’s statements. He argued that Gillard’s allegation was dated June 2015 and the report to the police was made some 21 months after. “Despite the enormity and seriousness of such a proposal, Gillard did not see it fit to report that unlawful proposal until March 29, 2017, that is 21 months later. It is common knowledge that no attempt was ever made against the life of President Granger since he took office,” said the attorney who represented the interest of the Guyana Police Force.
He argued that at the time of the alleged proposal, the Head of State was only in office for one month and it would have been impossible for Khan to have known of any plan on the part of the president to remove from his private residence. “Yet, Gillard stated that the work had to be done before President Granger could remove from his original residence,” Chang said while asking, “Why would Nizam Khan offer Gillard, a barber and taxi service operator, $7M to do a job like the assassination of President Granger?”

Chang said it is clear that Gillard was not the person whom anyone would offer $7M or any money to do such a job. “He was not a gunman or hit man,” he posited. Gillard had also accused Khan of having a hand in him being evicted from a property belonging to Stephen Persaud. It was then Chang said Gillard accosted Khan and accused him of having a role to play. “This must have hurt and offended Gillard,” said Chang. Gillard said too in his evidence that in 2016, he was accosted by Khan who asked for the return of his battery. Khan, he said, went into his (Gillard) premises housing his taxi service and took away two radio sets belonging to him and then pulled a gun and threatened to cripple him.
He said he attempted to make a report at the Grove Police Station only to be rejected. It was then he said he complained to Superintendent of Police, Rishi Das, at the Brickdam Police station about the threat but never reported being offered $7M by Khan to kill the president.
“With all these terrible things that Nizam Khan had done to him and with all these insults, Gillard goes to Superintendent Das and does not report to him that it is the same Nizam Khan who had in June 2015, made him an offer…this is most incredible,” Chang stated. “Even the most credulous among us would be severely taxed to accord any credibility to Gillard’s story. The police were in the same position,” he continued. The attorney argued that after the police did not take him seriously, Gillard fabricated a “much more serious allegation against Khan.” Gillard told the police that he did not report the matter earlier because he was fearful for his life. “His explanation for his prolonged delay has a very hollow ring,” Chang posited.

BAIL
On the issue of bail being granted by the police to the accused and accuser, Chang said the seriousness of the allegation could not be looked at in isolation, as “all a person would have to do to get a person against whom he has a grouse incarcerated without bail by the Police is report to the police that he offered him money to assassinate the president.”
He told the Commission that the police took urgent action in locating and arresting Khan while stressing that the arrest and granting of bail are two separate issues. Chang said if detention without station bail depends solely on the seriousness of the allegations, then persons with grouses against others would be empowered to cause the deprivation of liberty by making a false claim.
“Indeed, any such policy or practice in the operations of the GPF would be encouraging such allegations by malicious persons using or abusing the agency of the GPF as occurred in this case. Therefore, it is not and cannot and ought not to be the practice or policy of the GPF to deny arrested persons station bail solely or exclusively on the serious nature of the allegation. Arrest is one thing. The refusal of station bail is another thing.”
During the course of the CoI, several officers of the Major Crimes Unit and acting Top Cop, David Ramnarine said they would not have granted bail to the parties given the seriousness of the offence. The officers said it was substantive Police Commissioner Seelall Persaud who instructed that bail be granted; something Persaud has denied. He told the Commission he gave a mere suggestion.

SEELALL’S AUTHORITY
Meanwhile, the police attorney on the question of the police commissioner’s authority while on leave submitted that at all material times, Persaud, though on annual leave had the administrative power and authority to instruct the granting of station bail to Nizam Khan, his brother Imran Khan and Andriff Gillard.
Citing Article 228 (2) of the Constitution, Chang argued that Persaud was not on leave pending relinquishment of the office of Commissioner and as such Ramnarine could not have been appointed under Article 228 (2). Persaud called Inspector Prem Narine on the evening of March 29 and told him to grant station bail to Imran Khan, brother of Nizam Khan, and his friend for a number of years. It was argued that the police commissioner was on vacation and should not have intervened in the case.
Imran Khan was arrested for disorderly behaviour at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) on the said day.

But Attorney Pieters chided Commissioner Persaud for his intervention and termed it “an obstruction of justice.” Khan was released on his own recognisance because he did not have $10,000 to pay the station bail. “Therefore, he was never Commissioner of Police while Seelall Persaud was on annual leave and the power and authority of Commissioner remained vested in Seelall Persaud at all material times,” he added, noting that the situation would have been different if Persaud was on pre-retirement leave.

GILLARD’S OATH
Gillard testified twice before the Commission and on both occasions he swore by the Bible but told the Commission that he converted to Islam a number of years ago. The man said he is raising his son in the Muslim faith. The Holy Book for Muslims is the Quran and not the Bible. Chang pointed this out to the Commission noting that, “at the time he took the oath, it was the Quran and not the Bible that was binding on his conscience. He therefore deliberately elected to take an oath on a Holy Book which was not binding on his conscience.”

The attorney quoted Section 10 of the CoI Act, Cap 19:03 and noted that no one can testify before the courts or a CoI without taking an oath or making an affirmation. “Gillard in effect has done neither. He took no oath which was binding on his conscience nor did he affirm. Therefore, he made statements before this CoI which were not testimony and therefore before the CoI has no evidential value,” Chang said noting that it is irrelevant whether the man is prepared to do a polygraph test.
Chang’s views were entirely endorsed by Attorney Glen Hanoman. Hanoman is representing Police Commissioner Seelall Persaud. In his brief summation, the lawyer said evidence submitted does not suggest that the investigation by the police was improperly done. “It is also clear that all investigation steps were informed at all times by the continuous advice from the Police Legal Advisor (PLA). The fact that so much time and energy was taken up by the report of such dubious credibility, speaks volumes of the understanding of the GPF that any plot to harm a head-of-state has to be thoroughly investigated no matter how ridiculous the report.”
He described the report as a cold case and noted that while the report demanded a thorough investigation, it did not require any urgency as 21 months had passed and no attempt was made on the life of the President. Hanoman spared no efforts in reiterating his allegation that acting Top Cop Ramnarine’s opinions were opinions and ill-informed reports to the political directorate could evidently result in the perception that something was amidst.
Ramnarine had said the matter wasn’t properly investigated.