Dr Ghany seeks clarification on IC role in email probe

University Lecturer and media commentator Dr Hamid Ghany has asked the Integrity Commission for clarification on the matter of the emails that were sent to the commission by former president Max Richards.

In a letter to the Commission's communication officer, Mervyn Critchlow, Ghany asked for details on the matter.

His letter is transcribed below:

Dear Mr. Crichlow,

Thank you for your e-mail that provides the opinion of an unnamed Senior Counsel in respect of the likely jurisdiction of the Integrity Commission in this matter. The first two paragraphs of your release state as follows (highlighted areas are my emphasis) :

“The Integrity Commission of Trinidad and Tobago wishes to inform that, based on public statements and matters raised relative to copies of electronic mails forwarded for authentication to the Commission’s Chairman by the then President of the Republic, advice was requested from Senior Counsel as to whether those matters can be investigated by the Commission under the provisions of the Integrity in Public Life (IPLA) Act, Chapter 22:01.

The Senior Counsel has advised that the Commission indeed has the jurisdiction to consider and enquire matters where there have been breaches of the IPLA and where an offence has been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”

I shall be greatly obliged if you could clarify the following:

1. Seeing that the “copies of electronic mails forwarded for authentication to the Commission’s Chairman by the then President of the Republic” arrived at the Commission on 6thMarch instant, was the decision to seek the opinion of Senior Counsel taken by the Chairman acting alone or by the Chairman acting in concert with the members of the Commission before they demitted office on 14th March?
2. On what date was the opinion of Senior Counsel sought?
3. In the opinion of the Commission or the Chairman of the Commission, as the case may be, is the Integrity Commission the proper forum for the authentication of “copies of electronic mails forwarded for authentication” by the former President?
4. Was the decision of the Integrity Commission to seek the opinion of Senior Counsel “as to whether those matters can be investigated by the Commission” based on a determination by the Commission or the Chairman of the Commission, as the case may be, that the “copies of electronic mails” in its possession have already been authenticated?
5. Seeing that an edited version of the opinion of Senior Counsel has been provided by you, did Senior Counsel, in the complete version of the opinion, address the issue of whether the Commission is the proper forum for the “authentication” of “copies of electronic mails” sent to it by the former President?
6. If the matter of “authentication” of the “copies of electronic mails” is not settled, did Senior Counsel, in the complete version of the opinion, address the issue of whether the Commission should seek to proceed to exercise the jurisdiction that Senior Counsel believes that it has, namely “to consider and enquire matters where there have been breaches of the IPLA and where an offence has been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act”?
7. Will the Commission determine, if it has not already done so, that “authentication” is required before it can proceed to investigation?

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Yours sincerely, Dr. Hamid Ghany,