THE EDITOR: In the past, the TT Constitution provided for the appointment of a commissioner of police (CoP) and deputy commissioners of police (DCPs) by the Police Service Commission (PSC), subject to approval by the Prime Minister.
Obviously, the PSC was established to provide an institution that would monitor the performance of these very senior law enforcement officials on an ongoing basis. In such a scenario it is expected that the PSC would be staffed with individuals with the relevant expertise and/or have access to such expertise on contract or otherwise.
Accordingly, the PSC’s decisions on appointments ought normally, in my view, to be subject to challenge only via a lawsuit. There ought to be special provisions in the law to ensure that such lawsuits are handled expeditiously.
The role of elected officials in such a recruitment exercise should be severely circumscribed. The Prime Minister ought not to have any veto power. A worthy candidate can find himself being bypassed as a result of the pettiness or victimisation of a prime minister. That is not to say that a PM might not be in possession of credible information on such senior officials of the TTPS or a prospective candidate that would render a proposed appointment or promotion to be very unwise. However, that information ought to be made available to the PSC for its consideration.
To allay fears of the PSC promoting or appointing someone who the PM and/or the Opposition Leader has credible information that the individual concerned is a miscreant, there ought to be a constitutional provision in place whereby the President of TT submits the intended decision of the PSC to both the PM and Opposition Leader for consideration.
If there is no objection, the appointment is made. If there is an objection, it must be substantiated with relevant data/evidence. That information would then be sent back to the PSC, by the President, for its further deliberation and final decision. However, the buck stops with the PSC and not with any politician.
On the issue of acting appointments, we must adopt a practical and sensible approach. Very short-term acting appointments of a few days or a few weeks ought to be made exclusively by the PSC, and expeditiously. For instance, if the CoP is suddenly required to attend to an emergency private matter outside of the country, or he is incapacitated due to illness or he suddenly dies in office. Obviously, the next officer in line should be granted an acting appointment. Why should politicians become involved in such appointments?
It is also important that such appointments be made expeditiously as there may be, for instance, in an unrelated matter, a litigant with a weak case before the court who may use the loophole of a gap period in such an appointment to bolster his case. Moreover, if such a matter has to be deliberated on by Parliament, in the interim, particularly if it involves the CoP, there would be many critically urgent matters that cannot move forward because they require the approval (signature) of th
