THE Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has ruled that the one-year extension of the Police Commissioner’s service, granted by the President on the advice of the Cabinet in 2023, was lawful and constitutional.
In a decision on December 19, Lady Ingrid Simler, who sat on activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj’s appeal in October, ruled that the extension mechanism under the Police Service Act does not breach constitutional principles or usurp the Police Service Commission’s (PSC) powers.
Maharaj’s appeal challenged the validity of the extension and sought to nullify the decision.
However, the Privy Council board dismissed the appeal, affirming that the President acted under section 75(a) of the Police Service Act, which allows for such extensions in the national interest.
Lords Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Hamblen, and Stephens also presided over the appeal.
Under the Police Service Act No. 7 of 2006, the mandatory retirement age for the CoP is 60.
Section 75(a) of the act permits the President to extend the commissioner’s service for up to three years in one-year increments, provided it is deemed in the national interest.
The dispute arose when Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher, who was appointed on February 3, 2023, reached the retirement age of 60 on May 15, 2023.
On May 4, 2023, the Cabinet advised the President to extend her service for a year, a recommendation that was accepted and formalised through a gazetted notice on May 12, 2023.
A year later, on May 13, 2024, Harewood-Christopher’s service was extended for a further year to May 15, 2025.
Maharaj initiated judicial review proceedings, arguing the extension was unconstitutional. He contended that the power to extend the commissioner’s service was essentially an appointment, a function reserved for the PSC under the Constitution.
He also argued that the President should have exercised independent judgment under section 80(1) of the Constitution rather than acting solely on Cabinet’s advice.
Justice Ricky Rahim dismissed Maharaj’s claim in January 2024, holding that extending a commissioner’s service was distinct from making a new appointment.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in May 2024, clarifying that section 75(a) of the act and section 123 of the Constitution addressed separate matters.
The Court of Appeal also rejected Maharaj’s argument that the President was required to act independently of the Cabinet, saying section 80(1) of the Constitution obliges the President to follow the Cabinet’s advice in such matters.
In its ruling, the Privy Council said its reasons were “similar to those given by the Court of Appeal,” in that section 75(a) of the 2006 Act “is not unconstitutional and there is nothing unlawful in the decision of the President to extend the service of the commissioner beyond her normal retirement age.
“The order is therefore lawful. The board accordingly dismisses this appeal,” the judgment said.
In deciding the appeal, the law lords reasoned that section 75(a) of the act did not usurp the PSC’s constitu
