ACP Sagramsingh leave letter cites no misconduct

Akash Sama­roo

Lead Ed­i­tor-Pol­i­tics

akash.sama­[email protected]

De­spite the Prime Min­is­ter’s sug­ges­tion that the head of the Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Ser­vice failed to ad­dress a cul­ture of cor­rup­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly at the San Fer­nan­do Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Sta­tion, the let­ter di­rect­ing As­sis­tant Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice (ACP) Sur­ren­dra Sagram­s­ingh to pro­ceed on ad­min­is­tra­tive leave makes no men­tion of mis­con­duct or li­a­bil­i­ty on his part.

ACP Sagram­s­ingh was sent on ad­min­is­tra­tive leave on Tues­day pend­ing a probe in­to the mur­der of WPC Anusha Ever­s­ley and the theft of firearms from the San Fer­nan­do Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Sta­tion on Sun­day.

The let­ter giv­en to Sagram­s­ingh and signed by Pe­ter Mitchell, the Per­ma­nent Sec­re­tary at the Min­istry of Rur­al De­vel­op­ment and Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment states, “For the avoid­ance of doubt, this mea­sure is ad­min­is­tra­tive and pre­cau­tion­ary in na­ture and does not con­sti­tute a find­ing of mis­con­duct or li­a­bil­i­ty on your part.”

The let­ter went on to say, “Dur­ing this pe­ri­od, you will con­tin­ue to re­ceive your re­mu­ner­a­tion and con­trac­tu­al ben­e­fits in ac­cor­dance with the terms and con­di­tions of your em­ploy­ment, un­less oth­er­wise ad­vised.”

Sagram­s­ingh was told that the min­istry con­sid­ers send­ing him on leave to be “nec­es­sary” in the pub­lic in­ter­est and to pre­serve the in­tegri­ty of on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tions.

The let­ter adds, “You are fur­ther re­quired to re­main avail­able to the Min­istry and any au­tho­rised in­ves­tiga­tive body, and to co­op­er­ate ful­ly with any law­ful re­quests made in con­nec­tion with the said in­ves­ti­ga­tions.”

On Wednes­day, the Prime Min­is­ter said, “They have re­moved the head of the or­gan­i­sa­tion, Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Mr Sagram­s­ingh, I think he was, be­cause that has not been hap­pen­ing to­day. We dis­cov­ered it on that day. I think one of the of­fi­cers in an in­ter­view talked about over eight months, about eight months that has been go­ing on. So there has not been prop­er su­per­vi­sion of what is hap­pen­ing in the mu­nic­i­pal po­lice.”

At­tempts to reach ACP Sagram­s­ingh on the con­tents of the let­ter and the Prime Min­is­ter’s com­ments were un­suc­cess­ful.

Yes­ter­day, PS Mitchell con­firmed that the rec­om­men­da­tion to send Sagram­s­ingh on ad­min­is­tra­tive leave came from a se­nior po­lice of­fi­cer and was not a po­lit­i­cal di­rec­tive.

Al­though the Trinidad and To­ba­go Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Ser­vice is an arm of na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty, it falls un­der the re­mit of the Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Min­istry. How­ev­er, Mitchell made it clear that the rec­om­men­da­tion did not come from Min­is­ter Khadi­jah Ameen.

Mean­while, Sagram­s­ingh is the fa­ther of for­mer Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) min­is­ter and sen­a­tor Renu­ka Sagram­s­ingh-Sook­lal.

Sagram­s­ingh-Sook­lal would have al­so con­test­ed the St Au­gus­tine seat against Ameen last year.

At yes­ter­day’s Op­po­si­tion me­dia con­fer­ence, Guardian Me­dia asked Op­po­si­tion Leader Pen­ne­lope Beck­les if the par­ty be­lieves ACP Sagram­s­ingh is be­ing tar­get­ed due to his af­fil­i­a­tion with Sagram­s­ingh-Sook­lal. How­ev­er, Beck­les said there is no ev­i­dence to sug­gest that.

“He is in charge. We have to at least trust the process, at least, be­cause we don’t have the in­for­ma­tion. We have what is in the pub­lic do­main. So, I can­not say that I have ev­i­dence that it’s po­lit­i­cal­ly mo­ti­vat­ed.”

How­ev­er, Beck­les said she not­ed PS Mitchell’s rev­e­la­tion that the rec­om­men­da­tion came from a se­nior mem­ber of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS).

“Now, why is that im­por­tant? It is im­por­tant be­cause the Prime Min­is­ter said this is a mat­ter for the mu­nic­i­pal po­lice. But the rec­om­men­da­tion to re­move the head of the mu­nic­i­pal po­lice comes from the po­lice, yes? Be­cause they’re in­di­cat­ing the ques­tions asked, was it the min­is­ter? Who was it? And he (Mitchell) wasn’t will­ing to give that in­for­ma­tion. So, I’m say­ing we put all those pieces to­geth­er for now and we await to see ex­act­ly what will hap­pen.”