Vynette Frederick, DPP clash over ‘letter’
Front Page
February 9, 2007

Vynette Frederick, DPP clash over ‘letter’


Attorney-at-law Vynette Frederick has accused Prime Minister, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of trying to “save his behind” and hiding behind her, but the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Colin Williams says that Frederick’s letter has material in it which formed the basis of Alex Lawrence’s early release from prison, and he is considering releasing the letter to the public.

This is the latest chapter in the saga that began when word of Alex Lawrence’s early release from prison was made public knowledge about a month ago.{{more}}

In a statement on radio, Frederick, who is the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the New Democratic Party called Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves pathetic and said that he is using a letter “which had nothing to do with National Security what-so-ever,” to shield himself from the questions being asked of him.

Drawn into the debate about the early release of convicted drugs man Alex Lawrence by Prime Minister Dr Gonsalves last week in parliament, Frederick has now called on the Prime Minister to call fresh elections, accusing him of being arrogant and unfit to lead.

“You have proven by your flagrant lies that you are unfit to lead,” said Fredrick in a statement read during a radio programme on NICE Radio on Tuesday.

During last week’s sitting of Parliament Prime Minister Dr Gonsalves said that Vynnette Frederick had, as far back as May 2006 been seeking Lawrence’s early release from prison on matters that had to do with national security.

He suggested that the Opposition Leader was therefore politicizing the matter of national security even though he knows the gravity of the situation, made worse by the revelation that someone close to the NDP was involved in the matter.

Now the DPP has joined the debate, stating that the information contained in the letter written to him by Frederick had to do with national security matters.

“Absolutely yes,” said Williams on WE FM’s morning call in radio programme on Wednesday.

He also stated that Frederick approached him personally on more than one occasion about the letter. He said that she approached him before and after the letter was written to him.

Frederick stated that she had not represented Lawrence in court on any matter, let alone a drug related case. She said that Lawrence had requested to see her in prison, stating that he had some information for the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). Frederick said that she drafted the letter, spoke to the DPP and delivered the letter dated June 1, 2006.

In her address to the nation on Tuesday, she said that after delivering the letter to the DPP she had no further communication on the matter with him, nor did she receive any response to the letter.

Frederick however said on Wednesday, in a subsequent radio interview that she spoke to the DPP after the letter had been written and he told her that the information in the letter was useless.

While stating that she could not reveal the contents of the letter because of the Attorney/Client privilege rules she however made it clear that in her opinion, its contents had nothing to do with national security, nor did it make any request for the early release of the convicted drugs man.

“I did not request of anyone to have Alex Lawrence freed on national security matters or be freed at all,” Frederick stated and accused the Prime Minister of being a bold-faced liar.

She however said in the interview on WE FM on Wednesday, that the information given in the letter is such that it could assist with the solving of a crime.

“The Prime Minister is trying to redeem his failing political career by using me as a life raft,” she said.

Ever since the questions about Lawrence’s early release from prision last year were raised, there has been back and forth political jabbing on the issue. The prime minister refused to give any details about the release citing national security reasons. Opposition Leader Arnhim Eustace questioned the Mercy Committee’s judgment and demanded answers. He was taken into the Prime Minister’s confidence and given “substantial information.” He however remains unsatisfied, and has called on the prime minister to reveal more information.