Rowley has asked the president to determine whether there was a possible misuse and abuse of the Armed Forces by the Government with respect to the alleged assassination plot against the Prime Minister and three Cabinet Ministers.
However Ramlogan told local media Friday the government does not know if the report is authentic.
"If we get it, then we can look at it but, thus far, it seems as though Dr Rowley was quite prepared to share it with the media and everyone else, except the Government, whereas we, on the other hand, had shared information with him," the AG said.
Ramlogan also answered questions from reporters about the lack of evidence to prosecutive the 16 men who were detained in connection with the assassination plot. He made it clear that the police gather evidence and the Director Public Prosecutions decides whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge.
"But the executive arm of the State, in terms of the Government, we really have no involvement in that process," he explained.
He also made the distinction between intelligence and policing, noting that "there is a difference between credible intelligence that law enforcement agencies would gather and act upon and evidence which is admissible in a court of law".
He said with respect to the July 1990 attempted coup the current inquiry is unearthing "some startling facts" about the intelligence that was there. However he said although the government was warned about what was developing, it failed to act, "probably because they were waiting on evidence".
Ramlogan said, "Sometimes, you have to go with what the law enforcement agencies have in their hand and take pre-emptive action."
Ramlogan also answered questions from reporters about the lack of evidence to prosecutive the 16 men who were detained in connection with the assassination plot. He made it clear that the police gather evidence and the Director Public Prosecutions decides whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge.
"But the executive arm of the State, in terms of the Government, we really have no involvement in that process," he explained.
He also made the distinction between intelligence and policing, noting that "there is a difference between credible intelligence that law enforcement agencies would gather and act upon and evidence which is admissible in a court of law".
He said with respect to the July 1990 attempted coup the current inquiry is unearthing "some startling facts" about the intelligence that was there. However he said although the government was warned about what was developing, it failed to act, "probably because they were waiting on evidence".
Ramlogan said, "Sometimes, you have to go with what the law enforcement agencies have in their hand and take pre-emptive action."
No comments:
Post a Comment