— CoI finds crime chief lacks leadership skills, questions his input into successes under his watch

THE Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged plot to assassinate President David Granger has called for Senior Superintendent, Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum to be replaced, citing poor leadership and questioning his role in the successes in solving crimes under his watch.

The Paul Slowe-led CoI has called for Blanhum to be removed as head of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for his failure to properly supervise the investigation though so instructed by acting Commissioner of Police David Ramnarine, for lying to Ramnarine, not conducting due diligence on a report containing factual errors sent to the National Security Council (NSC), neglect of duty, and insubordination.
“… Blanhum should be replaced as crime chief and reassigned in order to gain command experience,” the report submitted to President Granger and seen by this newspaper recommended.

Blanhum was the first person in the Guyana Police Force (GPF) to receive information in relation to the plot to assassinate the President. He received a call from the Ministry of Public Security informing him that Andriff Gillard made the allegation on March, 29 this year.

Gillard alleged that back in June 2015, he was offered $7M to assassinate President David Granger. He told the police that Nizam Khan, a former friend of his, offered him the money after he, Gillard, had requested to borrow $6M.
The Grove businessman related that Khan told him, if he killed the President, he would not have to repay any money. During his testimony before the Commission, a feisty Blanhum declared that he found Gillard’s story “inherently incredible.”

“How would you view the allegation made by Gillard?” asked retired Justice Ian Chang, who represented the interest of the GPF, to which Blanhum responded, “It is my humble opinion that the allegation made by Gillard against Khan is inherently incredible.”
During his testimony, the crime chief told the Commission that based on legal advice received from Police Legal Advisor (PLA), Justice Claudette Singh, the information yielded from the investigation was “tenuous” and as such should continue; it was not sufficient to lay charges.

But based on the evidence presented to the Commission, it was found that Blanhum, “failed to properly supervise the investigation, even though he was instructed by the acting commissioner to personally do so,” and for this failure he should be disciplined.
On March 29, after Gillard related his story to the police, officers located and searched Nizam Khan’s property, after which he was taken to the CID. While there, he and Gillard were required to make statements, but in just a few hours, the duo was released.

Blanhum told acting Police Commissioner David Ramnarine that it was upon his instruction that Khan was released on bail. This was not true, as it was upon the instruction of substantive Police Commissioner, Seelall Persaud, that Khan was released.

DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD
“He lied to the acting commissioner when he told him that it was his decision to send Nizam Khan on bail. He should be disciplined for stating this deliberate falsehood,” the Commission determined.
In his testimony, Blanhum said he informed that Khan was released on bail until 08:30hrs on March 30 when he was so told by head of the Major Crimes Unit, Mitchel Caesar, during his regular morning brief at CID.

He told the Commission that “significant progress” was made in the investigation as officers were in possession of statements from several persons.
Slowe questioned why Gillard was taken to CID as opposed to ‘A’ Division for questioning. The crime chief noted the seriousness of the allegation and the fact that CID has a number of experienced persons along with the requisite resources.

Blanhum was unsure whether a report was made from ‘A’ Division. “On a weekly basis as the crime chief, I am engaged with over 100 investigations at the executive level of the force, the strategic, tactical level and operational level and I think the question should be asked to the investigators themselves,” he added.

However, Slowe contended that Blanhum ought to have ensured that his subordinates acted in accordance with the stipulated requirements.
“You are responsible for a serious investigation, are you suggesting to me that you are overwhelmed?” the commissioner asked, to which Blanhum replied, “I never said that…I am telling you I won’t be able to answer that question, it is for an investigator to say whether he made an entry… that is not my responsibility.”

The crime chief said he has been at CID for the past 17 years and there is absolutely no need for the crime chief to verify who made entries into the station diary or any other document. He made it clear that he is a “manager at the executive level.”

NO PROPER SUPERVISION
“This is an indication that he did not properly supervise the investigation as he was instructed to do by the acting Commissioner. He should be sanctioned for this,” the Paul Slowe-led Commission found and suggested.
Additionally, a report sent to the police commissioner contained the incorrect date the report by Gillard was made. That said inaccuracy was then forwarded to the NSC. The report was dated April as opposed to March 29; and when it was brought to Blanhum’s attention, he noted that it was simply an error.

“We all make mistakes, what relevance does that have on the case,” asked the crime chief who was clearly ruffled by the line of questioning.
“It has a lot, it shows that you weren’t diligent in observing the dates… it tells me that due attention wasn’t paid to a document that you were sending to your superior that had to go to, perhaps the highest security level in this country,” said Slowe.

It was then that Blanhum accused Slowe of being prejudicial in his assessment. “With all due respect commissioner, you are making assumptions and your comments based on your personal experience which can be viewed as prejudicial.” Slowe immediately dismissed Blanhum’s concerns.

“For that he should be disciplined for failing to exercise due diligence in preparing the report,” the Commission suggested. Moreover, a recording of Gillard’s allegation was sent by the acting Police Commissioner to the crime chief on March 30.
By his own admission, Blanhum failed to view the recording. “This is a serious neglect for which he should be disciplined,” the Commission opined.

It should be noted that during his testimony before the Commission, Blanhum was very feisty in his approach to answering questions, and as such, the Commission felt he was arrogant, argumentative and rude and should be challenged for such an approach.

“His lack of supervision of this important investigation, his utterances, disrespect, and arrogance displayed before the Commission shows that he is incapable of functioning as crime chief, the lead investigator and manager of the major investigating unit of the GPF. Blanhum should be replaced as crime chief and reassigned in order to gain command experience,” Slowe, a retired assistant commissioner, recommended.

Meanwhile, the CoI did take into consideration the fact that since being at the helm of the CID, the department has been credited with solving many serious crimes, some of which had been unsolved for many years.

“However, given his statement before the Commission that he is a manager at the executive level of the GPF and therefore does not have to ensure that crimes and allegations are recorded in the appropriate books at police stations and his hands-off attitude to this investigation; one has to question whether the recent success by the CID in solving serious crimes had anything to do with his leadership, which seems to be lacking.”

Additionally, the Commission noted Blanhum’s apparent oblivion to simple aspects of the investigation and attributed it to the “lack of attention he paid to this important investigation, and his disregard for details. Perhaps it is symptomatic of his general approach to his job.”

It was noted too that Blanhum has never commanded a police sub-division or division, and as such, “lacks command experience.”
“The Commission is of the view that such experience is critical for someone functioning as the crime chief,” the report concluded.