Sturge clarifies comments on Dana Seetahal murder

2026-03-19 - 02:14

Defence Minister Wayne Sturge has clarified his recent controversial remarks regarding the 2014 murder of special prosecutor Dana Seetahal. Speaking with Guardian Media yesterday, Sturge said his earlier comments in Parliament were based on evidence presented during the Preliminary Inquiry. Last Friday, Sturge said Seetahal knew she was going to be killed, adding that she had chosen not to have security and that intercepts existed indicating a threat to her life. “The police is there listening, knowing that a high-profile prosecutor is going to be killed, and instead of doing what we did, you know what they did...they listened, and they listened and they listened, and now she’s not here—that’s what they do,” he said. Former acting police commissioner Stephen Williams called Sturge an irresponsible politician for his statements, while former UNC minister Vasant Bharath also criticised him for implying that the murder occurred under a PNM government, noting that the UNC was in office at the time. PNM senator Boodhu slammed Sturge’s comments, arguing that the UNC Government had been aware of threats against Seetahal yet failed to act. He questioned who had the information, highlighting that Sturge was a temporary UNC senator from April 2013 to June 2015, during which time Seetahal was assassinated on May 4, 2014. Boodhu said, “Was Sturge referring to himself when he disclosed the knowledge of the threats against Ms Seetahal? Was he referring to then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who was National Security Council chairman? ... Was he confirming a pattern within the UNC of ignoring threats reported to them?” Sturge explained that the evidence from the Preliminary Inquiry shows that the then National Security Minister was not in receipt of the information and therefore could not have brought it to the attention of the National Security Council or the Prime Minister. Gary Griffith, the former National Security Minister, confirmed that at no time were any reports provided to him about Seetahal being a target, noting that under the Interception of Communications Act, only the Police Commissioner, the Director of the Strategic Services Agency, and the Chief of Defence Staff could request intercepts, and it would have been improper for those officials to inform politicians about individuals under surveillance.