Rowley admits some emails presented in Parliament might be bogus. "I am not pretending to be an IT expert", he says

Keith Rowley: "Suppose one of them is right?"

Keith Rowley told the House of Representatives Wednesday afternoon that he took the emails he received from a "whistleblower" to the President at 2:00 PM on January 8, 2013.

The Leader of the Opposition was winding up the debate on his no confidence motion. In opening the debate on Monday he presented a string of emails he said were from top government officials including the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

The documents, he said, contained email exchanges that revealed a conspiracy to undermine the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), have the DPP removed and also to harm a journalist.

The government has dismissed the emails as a fabrication and pointed out several technological reasons why it is clear that the material is bogus. Speakers on the government side have also asked why Rowley didn't go to the police with what was obviously a matter that, if true, had criminal intent.

In his rebuttal Wednesday Rowley admitted that he is no IT expert. "I am not here pretending to be any IT expert," he said. And then he suggested that it is possible that some of the material he presented might be true.

"Suppose the contents of one or two is true? Suppose one of them is right?" he asked.

He said when he received the package of emails he was taken aback by the contents and waited a few days before doing anything about the package. However he said he determined that the material contained serious allegations that should be investigated. So he went to the head of state.

George Maxwell Richards was the president at the time and Rowley said he expected the president ton pass the material to the Integrity commission, which he felt had greater investigate powers than the police.

However he did not deal with the issue of why he didn't take a matter of possible criminal intent to the police.

Rowley said he is not comfortable with any police investigation and said the country would only be satisfied if the "proper" authorities conduct a thorough probe of the matter. He said he is not satisfied that the police would conduct a proper investigation.

"I am here demanding a deep forensic investigation," he said adding that unless a proper investigation is conducted there would be a permanent stain on the country. 

He made it a point to support the fired Legal Affairs Minister Herbert Volney who suggested that the allegations than Rowley made were serious enough to
be investigated and that the Parliament is not the place for such an investigation.