EDITORIAL - Outstanding questions on villa break-in

With our high rate of general crime and random acts of gun violence, being Jamaica's national security minister must be a very stressful job.

So, this newspaper does not begrudge whoever occupies the portfolio the right to rest and recreation with friends, as was reported to be the case with Mr Peter Bunting, who has the task of tackling the crisis of national insecurity.

But as Mr Bunting would have known before - and reinforced by his time in the Cabinet - there are few more sensitive posts in the Government, demanding of judgement by the minister and public trust in his behaviour. That is why we are still disturbed by the lack of clarity on what happened at that villa in Portland at which Mr Bunting and friends were staying, even more so with what might be construed to be a convenient twist in the case last Friday.

Denzel Clarke, the accused, had a burglary charge adjusted to what his attorney says is the "lesser charge" of housebreaking and larceny, subsequent, we are told, to consultation with the director of public prosecutions (DPP).

We believe that the DPP should declare the basis upon which this change was made, to derail the rumour mill from positing that a quid pro quo was contrived between the accused and the security forces.

Mr Bunting has denied that he and/or his friends were held up by robbers or that he was ever in danger or frightened by the incident. The house, he had said, was burgled, with thief or thieves entering through an improperly secured window.

DETAILS SKETCHY

There seems to be consensus that a mobile telephone and tablet computers were stolen - and recovered hours after their theft. Now we are hearing that the items were the possessions of the villa owner. It remains hazy whether Mr Bunting was at the villa at the time of the break-in, but we are glad, if the claim is true, that none of the items belonged to Mr Bunting, and that classified information was not in danger of exposure.

It is still unclear how the police recovered the stolen items, although it has been informally suggested that they were secured during a sting operation.

We hope that the latter explanation is correct. For it would severely compromise Mr Bunting's authority, and that of the constabulary, if it were true that a government official and/or the police paid a ransom for the items.

If, indeed, the recovery was the result of a sting, it needs to be clarified whether only Denzel Clarke broke into the villa, and if not, whether other alleged culprits were engaged during the operation, and if, and how, one or some escaped the police dragnet.

We believe that it is the obligation of the police chief, Mr Owen Ellington, to tell the public the truth on these matters. The public, we feel, wants assurance that there was no breach of national security. He should also say whether the protocols for the security of key ministers and for maintenance of the integrity of classified and top-secret information were observed and whether they are in need of review.

It would be useful, too, for the police chief to offer an explanation about the whereabouts of Mr Bunting's security detail at the time of the incident and whether disciplinary action against them is warranted.

The bottom line is that we want an environment to facilitate Mr Bunting's success.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.