THE Prime Minister is once again denying that he was party to a three-way meeting with President Paula-Mae Weekes and former chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC) Bliss Seepersad in relation to the order of merit list for the commissioner of police.

In his Facebook post on Tuesday, Dr Rowley responded to attorney Larry Lalla, one of the attorneys who represented former police commissioner Gary Griffith when he sued the PSC after he was suspended from acting in the position after his contract had ended.

Lalla, on his Facebook page on Tuesday, posted a video with the caption, “PM ah shame for yuh!”

The 23-second video is a clip of Rowley at a media conference on October 16 last year saying he categorically denied that he had anything to do with the President and the PSC and the action taken by the PSC to withdraw the merit list.

The video ends with a newspaper headline “It was me” referring to an article in which Rowley admitted he met with Seepersad at President’s House and gave her information about an investigation into the issuing of firearm users licences (FULS) by Griffith.

The issue was first raised by the Opposition which claimed that a “high-ranking” government official had a meeting with Weekes and Seepersad during which the merit list, with Griffith’s name on it, was given to Weekes but was rescinded by Seepersad immediately after.

The ensuing controversy led to the collapse of the PSC and the process had to be started afresh under a new commission.

Reached for comment on on Tuesday, Seepersad told Newsday: “I have said nothing so far, and I have nothing to add,” before ending the call.

Lalla had also posted on Monday, “Did our Prime Minister commit a crime when he worked with the chairman of the POLSC (Police Service Commission) and the President of the Republic to undermine our Constitution?”

Rowley asks questions

In response on Tuesday, Rowley said to Lalla in his Facebook post: “So you make it that by my passing information to the PSC automatically means that I was (1) in a meeting with those two officers, President and chairman? (2) that the President must be involved and is a party to anything I did with the chairman? (3) that I spoke with the chairman about the PSC merit list? (4) that I advised her to withdraw such a list? (5) that I saw or was made to know what the merit list contained? (6) that I only shared that pertinent information with the commission in some connection with the merit list? (7) I should not be alarmed about the explosive information emanating from the Firearms Department and, even if I was alarmed, that was not a good time to alert the PSC?

“Well, you are free to have your speculations but feel no shame for me. The only thing that comforts me is that you are not my lawyer. Clearly in your world, facts and logic don’t matter, what matters is any foolish cause you choose to associate with.”

Rowley also challenged Lalla to identify an instance where he denied that he gave information to the PSC by communicating with Seepersad.

“Check your fac