Was Gary Griffith properly appointed as acting Commissioner of Police by the Police Service Commission (PSC) on the cusp of the ending of his three-year contract as top cop?

Was the PSC required to send a list of nominees to the President for the acting commissioner’s position to be forwarded to the Parliament for approval, and should his appointment have been made only after the legislature approved Griffith’s nomination?

These are the questions that will be answered on Thursday when Justice Nadia Kangaloo gives her ruling on an interpretation claim filed by social activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj who wants the court to declare that Griffith’s appointment to act was illegal and unconstitutional as it did not follow the procedure set out by the Constitution for such appointments.

On Monday, Kangaloo heard oral submissions from Maharaj’s lead attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC; the State, led by Douglas Mendes, SC, the PSC’s lead attorney Russell Martineau, SC, and Griffith’s attorney, Larry Lalla.

The PSC and Griffith were joined as interested parties in the claim and the former commissioner was present for the virtual hearing. He is currently out of the country and on leave as acting top cop after his September 17 suspension was revoked. Griffith was logged into the hearing under the name “Batman Gary.”

His three-year contract came to an end on August 16, and his acting appointment took effect one day later.

Ramlogan questioned why the commission sent a list of two names to the President for the acting position if it had the power to make the appointment without it going to the Parliament.

“Why was it necessary to submit more than one name? It is clear they knew that names would have to go to Parliament in the same way as appointing a substantive commissioner.

“The right way is to submit names and for the President to send it to the Parliament for approval.”

Ramlogan referred to President Paula-Mae Weekes’s response to the PSC’s letter. In it, she said clause 4 of the Legal Notice 183 of 2021 caused her some immediate concern but provided no guidance on her role other than to accept the list.

Clause 4 gives the PSC the power to submit to the President a list of suitably qualified people within the ranks of the police service, or someone who was on contract or whose contract ended, as nominees, to act in the office of commissioner or deputy commissioner pending the conclusion of the process to select a substantive top cop.

Ramlogan said there lay the “conundrum” since if the commission had the power to make an appointment there was no need to send a list of nominees to the President.

He said for it to have sent the list, it must have been acting in accordance with section 123 of the Constitution which mandates that the list must go to the Parliament for approval.

“They cannot say they just sent an ‘FYI' (for your information) to Her Excellency.”

He said the wrong person in the office of the top cop “even for a day” can do so much damage, and it was for this reason such an appointment had to go