July 22, 2008

I REFER to the Commentary by Mr. Alvin Williams in your July 18, 2008 edition. Without reading the report of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Williams lists five groups that he concludes appeared or submitted written concerns to the Committee.

The fifth group prompted the Committee to recommend that an "investigation of allegations of corruption at the Bermuda Housing Corporation" should be undertaken. Mr. Williams notes, "We all know where this recommendation comes from," and, just in case you don't, he mentions the Auditor General in the following sentences.

For the benefit of Mr. Williams' readers, "we all" really don't know. I never met the delegation from the Foreign Affairs Committee or any of its members. Nor did I send it, or any of its members, a report. I didn't even attend a reception at Government House that was put on for interested Bermudians to meet them.

Next, Mr. Williams brings up leaking the missing Police documents on the BHC affair. "Even in England, any person caught handling such documents would suffer some type of reprimand."

Note that Mr. Williams does not actually accuse me of handling missing Police documents ¿ just uses the slick oil of innuendo. If Mr. Williams is actually informing his readers that I handled missing Police documents, he should come right out and say it. I agree with Mr. Williams that in England, if you indeed did handle missing Police documents, you could well face some type of reprimand. And that holds true for Bermuda.

But the fact is I did not handle missing Police documents. Since I handled only copies, as far as I'm concerned, the "missing Police documents" could still be at Police Headquarters. Who would have stolen them then? The Privy Council has said that copies cannot be considered stolen. Yes, Mr. Williams, this would apply in England as well as Bermuda.

For those commentators and community leaders who feign an impossibility of understanding the difference, shame on you. You know better.

But for Mr. Williams' readers who have been fed a diet of self-focused examples, I would like to offer, hopefully, a simple story that highlights the difference. You have a valuable painting hanging on your wall. You are even thrilled that you and only a few very close friends can ever see it. One day one of those friends takes a picture of it and sends the image to me. Did I steal your painting? Did I handle stolen goods? If you want a more complicated story to help explain the difference, have Mr. Williams ask a lawyer. After all, it was the Privy Council who said there was a difference.

Mr. Williams' last comment that he directed against the Auditor General was a reference to my 2007 Annual Report in which he notes that I allege my arrest was politically motivated and "the leadership of the current Government was in cahoots with the Police".

He notes that "if there was something of an alliance of convenience between the Government and the Police, it was indeed short-lived judging by the number of officers who joined the labour protest held at Parliament recently".

I wonder why Mr. Williams uses the protest as his example of Police independence when there was a far more poignant example. I can bet him a creditable column that not one of the 200-plus Police officers who went to Parliament Hill allied with and accompanied the Attorney-General before the Privy Council. Now that was a demonstration of Police independence from Government if I ever saw one!

Constitutionally independent officers do not work against or for a government.

It may surprise some, but the Government's interest and the Commissioner's interest in this case did not converge. The Commissioner of Police has a multitude of law at his disposal to protect his interest.

To ally himself with a Government before the Privy Council against a Bermuda citizen, whether corporate or individual, is wrong in its conception; wrong in its execution; and unfortunate in its perception.

Now I think this example is a far better indication of the lack of Police independence than the example of 200 of below-the-ranks-of-the-top-levels of Police officers demonstrating on Parliament Hill.

LARRY DENNIS

Auditor General