CoI recommends… Sanctions, removal for several CID sleuths
Head of the Major Crimes Unit, ASP Mitchell Caesar
Head of the Major Crimes Unit, ASP Mitchell Caesar

FAILURE to disclose pertinent information to the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged assassination of President David Granger has resulted in a recommendation being made for Corporal 17862 Germaine Laundry to be disciplined and removed from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

According to the report on the matter compiled by retired Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Slowe, Laundry’s poor performance during that investigation leaves much to be desired. “Having regard to his poor performance in this investigation, he should be removed from the CID,” the report stated. Laundry has been serving at CID and the Major Crimes Unit for just over a year.

Sergeant Komal Petamber

Moreover, the Slowe report stated that when Laundry gave evidence before the commission on July 21, he failed to disclose that he took a statement from Luanna Walker just two days prior. When he reappeared before the commission on August 2, it was revealed that he had taken Walker’s statement in relation to the alleged assassination plot.
“Laundry’s failure to disclose this information at the inquiry on July 21 is a neglect for which he should be disciplined,” the report added. Laundry had been part of the initial investigation, as he was part of a three-man team that travelled to Diamond, East Bank Demerara (EBD), to arrest Nizam Khan. Khan was accused of offering businessman Andriff Gillard $7M to assassinate President Granger in June 2015. Gillard told police that he approached Khan to borrow $6M, but instead he was offered $7M to kill the head-of-state.
The commission’s attorney, James Bond, had asked Laundry whether he had got the chance to reveal all important information related to the alleged plot to the CoI during his evidence-in-chief. Laundry responded in the affirmative and noted that he could not recall omitting any information during his evidence-in-chief. “Do you consider the evidence or the statement of Luanna Walker to be important?” Bond then questioned, “Yes sir,” Laundry replied. Bond asked him if he had any reason for not disclosing on July 21 that he had taken a statement from Walker on July 19. The corporal told the commission he forgot to mention Walker’s statement prior. Bond then said, “You do recall that this is just two days [prior] to you coming to the witness box?’”, to which Laundry answered, “yes sir.’’

Neglect of duty
Meanwhile, in the case of Sergeant 19822 Komal Petamber, the commission recommended that he be disciplined for neglect of duty, given his actions during the investigation. During his testimony, Petamber, a senior detective of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), was upbraided by Slowe for what he deemed to be poor work during investigation of the matter.

Slowe in his critique lambasted Petamber, who accepted that he did not comply with several established rules and guidelines of the force during the investigation. It was disclosed during the testimony by Gillard, that Khan had displayed a long black gun which he (Gillard) was expected to use to kill the President. He contended that since he refused to carry out the act, Khan had been harassing him.
However, Sergeant Petamber had said that a search was conducted on Khan’s Diamond, East Bank Demerara (EBD) property on the afternoon of March 29, but no such weapon was found. Instead, a pistol and matching ammunition were found and the licence for same was produced by Khan. Petamber did not obtain a search warrant before going to Khan’s home and as such, the commission recommended that he be disciplined for the neglect.
In fact, it was ascertained during the detective’s testimony that Khan’s premises had not been properly searched. “He failed to conduct a diligent search of the home and other property of Nizam Khan. He should be disciplined for this neglect,” the report added.
It was also disclosed during the hearings that Khan, though arrested, was allowed to travel to CID headquarters in his own vehicle.

Inspector Prem Narine

“This showed that he [Petamber]) failed to perform his duties with diligence. For this he should be disciplined,” the report recommended. The police vehicle which was used to get to Khan’s home was driven back to CID by Corporal Laundry, who was accompanied by Gillard, while Petamber and Corporal Heranjan Deonarine travelled to CID with Khan.
Petamber told the commission that he became involved in the case on March 29 upon the behest of the officer-in-charge (OC) at the time, Assistant Superintendent, Mitchell Caesar, but noted that after that day he didn’t have a role to play.
Meanwhile, Inspector Prem Narine was lauded by the commission for what has been described as a “very impressive” testimony. The commission noted his composure under intense cross-examination and applauded him for his efforts. It was Narine who told the commission of Commissioner of Police Seelall Persaud’s early interference in the investigation and as such said “he should be commended for his honesty.”
Notwithstanding his performance, the commission found that Narine had failed to carefully examine the bail receipt, which resulted in Nizam Khan being released without posting bail. As a result, “the commission recommends that Narine should be reprimanded for this lapse.”

It was Inspector Narine who said that neither Gillard nor Khan ought to have been released before the expiration of 72 hours in custody. He told the commission that based on the nature of the offence, incitement to commit murder, as recorded in the station diary, both men ought to have remained in custody. The two men were released on bail less than 24 hours after their arrest. During his evidence-in-chief, Narine said it was Commissioner of Police Seelall Persaud who had instructed him to release the men.
“It is my policy to keep persons in custody until instructed to release them. It is not against the law,” said Narine. He told the commission that he did not take contemporaneous notes of his conversation with Persaud, but he reported immediately what he was told by Persaud to head of the Major Crimes Unit, Assistant Superintendent Mitchell Caesar.
Like Narine, ASP Caesar told the commission that he too would not have released the duo on bail. He too said he did not find it strange that the police commissioner had instructed that Khan and Gillard be placed on station bail. “Notwithstanding the fact that he was on leave, you didn’t find it strange?” asked Slowe. Caesar replied in the negative, noting that he would not have placed the accused on bail, but he was instructed.

“The issue of leave did not dawn on me at that time,” the ASP stated. He said he attempted to communicate with Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum, but it was pointed out that it was the police commissioner who had instructed that the men be released. Caesar reports to the crime chief. Asked why he did not communicate same to the crime chief, Caesar responded, “Sir, it is the commissioner of police. I didn’t see that was fit for me to do so, tell the crime chief that the commissioner of police said to put them on bail,” said Caesar, who accepted that he should have communicated with Blanhum.
Caesar told the commission that despite the seriousness of such an investigation, he left the office for home on March 29. Because of this, the commission concluded that Caesar had failed to properly supervise the investigation and as such, should be disciplined for the neglect. “As the officer-in- charge of the Major Crimes Unit at the time when the investigation began, he left and went away without making any record of his movement. He should be sanctioned for this,” the report said.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.