Choiseul On The Move

 

CASE CLOSED — BUT BY WHOM?

The Richard Frederick Investigation Raises a Bigger Constitutional Question

The police investigation involving Housing Minister Richard Frederick has come to an end.

Commissioner of Police Verne Garde announced that the allegation investigated by police was “not sustained.”

That finding must be treated fairly. An allegation is not proof of wrongdoing. An investigation is not a conviction. And Richard Frederick should not be declared guilty in the court of public opinion simply because police investigated an allegation against him.

But after listening carefully to the Commissioner's explanation, Choiseul on the Move believes another question now deserves attention.

It is perhaps even more important than asking what the original allegation was:

Was the completed investigation ever submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

That question matters because Saint Lucia's Constitution establishes an important separation between investigation and prosecution.

Police Investigate — The DPP Prosecutes

The Royal Saint Lucia Police Force investigates suspected criminal offences.

Police interview witnesses, collect evidence, conduct searches where lawfully authorised and determine whether an investigation has produced evidence requiring further action.

But the Director of Public Prosecutions occupies a separate constitutional office.

Section 73 of the Constitution gives the DPP authority to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against persons before the courts.

The DPP may also take over criminal proceedings instituted by another person or authority and may discontinue proceedings before judgment.

Indeed, the Constitution makes the DPP's authority particularly powerful by providing that certain prosecutorial powers are exercised “to the exclusion of any other person or authority.”

That independence exists for an important reason.

Political considerations should not determine who gets prosecuted.

Neither should public pressure.

The evidence and the law should determine that.

So What Exactly Did Commissioner Garde Close?

This is where careful language becomes important.

There is nothing inherently unusual about police concluding an investigation.

If investigators examine an allegation and determine that the available evidence does not substantiate it, the police cannot reasonably be expected to investigate forever.

If Commissioner Garde was saying, “The police investigation is complete and investigators found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation,” that is one thing.

But deciding whether criminal proceedings should ultimately be instituted is another matter.

That is why the public deserves clarification about what happened between those two stages.

Was the Richard Frederick investigative file submitted to the DPP for review?

If it was, simply tell the country that.

If it was not, then another reasonable question follows:

Why not?

That question does not presume wrongdoing by Commissioner Garde.

Neither does it presume guilt on the part of Richard Frederick.

It simply asks Saint Lucia's institutions to explain the process followed in a matter involving a sitting Cabinet Minister.

Remember How Serious This Became

This was not some passing rumour circulating on Facebook.

Richard Frederick was detained and questioned by police.

His residence was reportedly searched.

The matter generated weeks of national controversy.

The Government publicly called upon citizens to respect due process and the independence of the police investigation.

Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre indicated that he would await the outcome of that investigation before determining what action, if any, should be taken concerning Frederick's position in Cabinet.

Saint Lucians therefore waited.

Now that the investigation has concluded, surely citizens are entitled to understand how it concluded.

And We Still Don't Know the Allegation

Then comes the second troubling question.

When Commissioner Garde was asked about the allegation, he declined to disclose it.

There may be perfectly legitimate reasons for that.

Disclosure could potentially identify a complainant. It could expose sensitive personal information. It could unfairly damage someone's reputation by publicly repeating an allegation police were unable to substantiate.

Those possibilities should not simply be dismissed.

But if confidentiality is necessary, the Commissioner should be able to explain why confidentiality remains necessary without revealing the confidential information itself.

There is a considerable difference between saying, “I cannot disclose this because doing so could identify or compromise the privacy of an individual involved” and simply leaving the country wondering what happened.

“Not Sustained” Also Deserves Clarification

There is another phrase Saint Lucians should examine carefully.

The Commissioner reportedly said the allegation was “not sustained.”

That should not automatically be transformed into:

“The allegation was proven false.”

Those are not necessarily the same conclusion.

An allegation may fail to be sustained because investigators could not obtain sufficient evidence to establish it.

That does not make the accused person guilty. Quite the opposite: without sufficient evidence, the presumption of innocence remains fundamental.

But accuracy matters.

The public should know precisely what conclusion investigators reached rather than allowing politicians and commentators on either side to manufacture their preferred interpretation.

Three Questions — No Conspiracy Theories Required

Choiseul on the Move therefore puts three straightforward questions to Commissioner Garde:

1. Without revealing names, witnesses or sensitive information, what was the general nature or category of the allegation investigated?

2. If even the general nature of the allegation cannot be disclosed, what legal, privacy or investigative consideration prevents its disclosure now that the police investigation has concluded?

3. Most importantly, was the completed investigative file submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for review before it was announced that the allegation was “not sustained”?

These are not accusations.

They are questions.

And democratic institutions should never fear reasonable questions.

This Is Bigger Than Richard Frederick

Supporters of Richard Frederick may understandably regard the conclusion of the investigation as vindication.

His political opponents may remain suspicious.

But institutional accountability cannot depend upon whether the person being investigated wears red, yellow, blue or green.

Imagine the same circumstances involving a minister from another government.

Would we ask the same questions?

We should.

The constitutional safeguards surrounding criminal justice exist precisely because important decisions should not depend upon personalities or politics.

Police investigate.
Prosecutors prosecute.
Courts determine guilt where charges are brought.

And citizens have every right to ask whether those institutions operated according to the procedures designed to protect both the accused and the public.

Respect Frederick's Rights — And Ask the Questions

Nothing presently before the public justifies declaring Richard Frederick guilty of an undisclosed allegation that police say was not sustained.

His presumption of innocence should be respected.

Similarly, nothing presently before the public establishes that Commissioner Garde improperly terminated the investigation.

We should not manufacture evidence that does not exist.

Transparency does not require accusation.
It requires explanation.

Tell us generally what was investigated, insofar as the law permits.

Tell us why further disclosure cannot be made if legitimate confidentiality considerations prevent it.

And tell us whether the investigative file went before the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.

If those questions have straightforward answers, providing them would strengthen rather than weaken confidence in the Royal Saint Lucia Police Force.

The police may have closed their investigation.

But there remains one question that deserves a clear answer:

WAS THE FILE PLACED BEFORE THE DPP?

Until Saint Lucians know that, saying simply “case closed” may close a police file — but it does not necessarily close the legitimate public-interest questions surrounding it.

Choiseul on the Move — Independent community commentary.
Accountability should never depend on political colour.