NAPARIMA MP Rodney Charles accused the Government of trying to control the police service by the use of two orders approved last November which he now sought to annul, speaking in the House of Representatives on Friday.

The Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process)(No 2) Order 2021 says Parliament must approve a person chosen as acting COP and this choice is based on seniority, while the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process)(No 2)(Amendment) Order 2021 deletes the latter provision on seniority.

Charles sought to annul these two orders so as to have an acting CoP chosen by seniority.

He made his case by saying seniority operates in areas as diverse as school administration, the fire service, the military, Parliament and even in Heaven.

Charles said seniority facilitates operational efficiency, makes for good order and continuity, and prevents a questioning of authority.

He hit, "But what we have here today, the results we have today, is an attempt by the Government, those opposite, to interfere, control, and influence the selection process of a commissioner of police and acting positions. There is something that is mischievous.

"These legal notices 277 and 278 are in our view instances of the Government attempting to infiltrate, control and give directives..."

At that he was cut off by House Leader Camille Robinson-Regis to complain Charles was imputing improper motives, to which Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George rose to rein in his contribution.

Charles said without Justice Peter Jamdar's ruling - which said Parliament must approve an acting appointment as CoP - the Government would have continued its illegal interference in the

selection of an acting CoP.

He said police officers had told him of their fears of a possible scenario where an ASP was named as Acting CoP, only to be giving orders to a Deputy Commissioner of Police, his otherwise superior. "Isn't that a recipe for chaos?" Charles asked who would take ownership for the authorship of Legal Notices 277 and 278.

He said if a substantive CoP took four days leave it would be easier to name an acting CoP based on the next most senior officer on the merit list who would command respect, rather than an officer who might face resistance from subordinate officers.

Charles said the legal notices could give rise to 12 or more equally qualified and experienced nominees for acting CoP.

"It brings in the question of subjectivity. Maybe a nod by Cabinet in a certain direction. It is a dangerous precedent.

"It opens the door for legal challenges by officers overlooked for acting appointments."