Response to FNM Press Release dated December 7th 2009
The FNM is totally wrong in its suggestion that somehow, I Bradley Roberts, hold personal animosity towards the outgoing Commissioner of Police. The allegation of rape made against me was after all, unequivocally and unconditionally withdrawn by the virtual complainant.
I do not for one moment believe that it was my statement on the appointment of Greenslade which caused the ire of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and Carl Bethel a portion of which read:
“We remain disappointed over the initial “political” appointment of outgoing Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson. This was a human example of the FNM’s policy of ‘stop cancel and review’; in what would have been the most appropriate appointment of Mr. Greenslade. This decision we feel, contributed to the disintegration of trust on the Royal Bahamas Police Force as well as very regressive crime fighting strategies during one of the most socially chaotic periods in the history of our Country”.
Rather, it was what I brought to the attention of the Bahamian Public regarding a serious matter which was dealt with by a Senior Justice of the Supreme Court which involved Commissioner Ferguson. I am being so viciously attacked because of this matter of national interest which I revealed at a meeting of the PLP Fox Hill Branch held on January 23rd 2009 which was not at that time of interest to the Press.
My said remarks went thus,
“The Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson
The Front page headline in the Nassau Guardian on this past Thursday November 19th 2009 read “Police Chief to Retire”. Another front page story on the same page read:
“Appeal against ruling critical of Reginald Ferguson dropped”.
The Office of the Attorney General on November 18th 2009 withdrew its appeal of a Judge’s decision to stay the prosecution of two men accused of a murder that occurred almost 10 years ago.
The ruling was also critical of Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson.
- • Attorney Damian Gomez adduced SWORN evidence from his client that COP Ferguson FORCED evidence out of her
- • At the time that she alleged that he forced her, he was the Acting Commissioner of Police
- • She SWORE that:
o the evidence forced from her was not the truth
o she would not have gotten involved but for Ferguson
- • The record shows that Senior Justice Isaacs gave the AG’s office 4 different chances to get evidence from COP Ferguson to answer the SWORN evidence. Note the sworn evidence made very serious allegations against COP Ferguson
- • COP Ferguson is also a Minister of the Gospel
- • The AG’s office, instead of producing evidence from COP Ferguson, produced a document that they CLAIMED was a further affidavit of hers. She denied that the document was her document and SWORE that her signature had been forged
- • COP Ferguson did not avail himself of any of the opportunities given by Senior Justice Isaacs to answer the sworn evidence.
o COP Ferguson did not deny that he had forced her.
o And he did not deny that the signature on the document produced by the AG had been forged.
- • Having given 4 chances and receiving no evidence denying the sworn evidence, Senior Justice Isaacs threw the matter out.
- • In effect Senior Justice Isaacs did the following:
o Accepted as truthful her SWORN statement that she was forced by Ferguson to give evidence.
o Treated the failure of COP Ferguson (a Minister of the gospel) to refute the evidence as an admission of the truth of the evidence.
o Accepted as truthful that her signature had been forged.
- • Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that the AG’s office would appeal the case and give the evidence
- • The AG’s office did appeal but DID NOT give any evidence and did not refute the allegation of forgery
- • Instead, the AG’s office withdrew the appeal as mentioned on November 18th 2009.
- • The RBPF Orders state that in the circumstance where a policeman admits that he forced evidence from a witness, that is a very serious disciplinary matter, against the code of ethics of the RBPF and that the officer should be suspended, interdicted, disciplined and the matter investigated.
- • If this had happened to a sub officer, (s)he would have been disciplined in accordance with Force Orders
- • COP Ferguson should be treated the same as every other officer would have been treated i.e. he should be suspended, interdicted, disciplined and the matter investigated
- • COP Ferguson should go now without further delay.
- • The PLP is investigating the filing of a Constitutional Motion to put COP Ferguson on leave in accordance with Force Orders.
- • Ladies and Gentlemen, I therefore join in with the increasing Bahamian chorus including FNM’s and PLP’s GO Tommy GO! Go Tommy GO! Tommy has badly failed the Bahamian People.
This [is a] matter of Public record and could not be Stop, Reviewed and Cancelled by Hubert Ingraham and the FNM.” End Quote.
I wish to make it clear that at no time did I personally attack retired Commissioner Ferguson, outside the realm of his office. At no time for that matter, can it be said that I have gone on a personal attack of the personal character of any politician or high ranking member of society from the seat of the PLP Chairmanship. I have been fierce on issues, fierce yes, on inefficiencies in the performance of duties. And I shall continue to, in a relentless fashion, to expose these deficiencies and or corruption wherever they may be hiding, as it relates to the governance of our Country. But the Bahamian public has my assurance that I will never sink to the level of gutter politics as has been espoused by this “Communications Unit” of the Free National Movement.
The times are too serious, too many of our sons and daughters are choosing violent means to retaliate against perceived injustices against them. People in this Country are being murdered for words with far less venom and irresponsibility.
For this reason I challenge the Communications Unit of the Free National Movement to meet me on the point of policies and issues. And if they are attempting to distract the Bahamian people from the harsh realities that are ravaging us at present by personally attacking me then I warn them to cease and desist.
I wish to also publicly inform them that my attorneys have advised that the last paragraph of their statement is in their opinion, clearly libelous. And as such, my legal team is exploring the option of legal recourse against them.