Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 2 days ago
Attorneys representing Rajaee Ali, Earl Richards and Canadian national Christopher Hughes called on the Police Service Commission (PSC) to determine whether the Commissioner of Police should recuse himself from any investigation or review concerning alleged statutory non-compliance involving the country's intelligence and communications interception framework.
Transcript
00:00In a letter dated July 16th, Quantum Legal Attorneys Christon Williams and Blaine Sobrian also requested the establishment of an
00:07independence review mechanism to examine whether the mandatory reporting obligations under the Strategic Services Agency Act and the Interception of
00:17Communications Act had been complied with.
00:19The correspondence was addressed to PSE Chairman Dr. Wendell Wallace and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Roger Gaspard.
00:26The attorneys stated that their clients had been directly affected by executive action in which intelligence, national security considerations, or
00:36information said to have been derived from agencies exercising covert statutory powers had been relied upon by public authorities.
00:44They said intelligence had been publicly relied upon in support of the transfer of Ali and Richards from MSP to
00:51Tetron Barracks during the state of emergency and the subsequent issuance of preventative detention orders.
00:57In the case of Hughes, they said issues concerning national security, organized criminal activity, and alleged communications with certain individuals
01:06were publicly relied upon in criminal proceedings instituted against them.
01:10The attorneys maintained that they were not challenging the use of intelligence gathering or intelligence-led policing, nor were they
01:18alleging that any interception of communications involving their clients was unlawful.
01:23Instead, they said their concerns centered on whether the institutions entrusted with those powers had complied with the statutory safeguards
01:32enacted by Parliament and whether the accountability mechanisms established to regulate them had been allowed to lapse without explanation.
01:40According to the letter, annual reports required under Section 13 of the SSA Act and Section 24 of the Interception
01:48of Communications Act appeared not to have been laid before Parliament for several years.
01:53The attorneys stated that correspondents seeking clarification on compliance with those reporting obligations had been sent to several public officials
02:02since 2024, including former Ministers of National Security, the current Homeland Security Minister, the Minister of Defence, the Clerk of
02:12the House, and the Speaker of the House.
02:14They said responses received confirmed that annual reports had been prepared and delivered to the Minister responsible for national security
02:22in at least one instance, but had not been laid before Parliament.
02:27The letter argued that the reporting requirements were mandatory statutory safeguards intended to ensure ministerial accountability and parliamentary oversight of
02:38intelligence-gathering and covert surveillance powers.
02:41The attorneys further raised concerns regarding the public expenditure connected to the SSA, stating that publicly identified funding linked to
02:50the agency between 1995 and 2026 amounted to at least $3 billion.
02:56They acknowledged that the figure combined actual expenditure, reported expenditure, and budget estimates.
03:03They also noted that public records did not provide a consolidated, audited, and publicly accessible lifetime account of SSA expenditure
03:14and questioned whether Parliament had been provided with sufficient information to scrutinize the agency's activities and spending.
03:23The letter referred to statements made by former Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley in 2024 regarding an audit of the
03:31SSA, which included references to issues involving the agency's structure, staffing, weapons, ammunition, and internal governance.
03:41The attorney said those matters highlighted the importance of statutory reporting and parliamentary oversight mechanisms.
03:48They further argued that the Office of the Commission of Police formed part of the statutory framework governing the interception
03:55of communications and intelligence-gathering,
03:58and that common law principles relating to apparent bias and institutional independence should apply where questions arise concerning compliance with
04:08that framework.
04:10The attorneys made no allegations of misconduct or bad faith against the Commission of Police.
04:16However, they submitted that the Commissioner should not participate in any investigation, review, assessment, or decision-making process concerning the
04:27apparent statutory non-compliance identified in the correspondence.
04:32The attorneys requested an acknowledgement of receipt of the correspondence within 72 hours and a substantive response by July 27.
04:42Copies of the letter were also sent to Prime Minister Kamala Passat-Bissessor and Police Complaints Authority Director David West.
04:51Alexander Brucewell, TV6 News.
Comments