Repeated debates over the functions of the Police Service Commission (PSC) continue to look like a soap opera, never-ending and with unintended consequences.
And once again, the distinguished chairman and four members of the PSC could be forgiven if they wonder what’s next with these legal notices. They directly affect the PSC’s constitutional functions with such twisted repetition that even the public should wonder what will tomorrow bring to the PSC and the process of selecting and appointing a CoP and DCP.
Given what has happened before and last Tuesday’s debate over UNC senator Wade Mark’s motion to annul two legal notices (Nos 277, 278 of 2021) and Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi’s explanations regarding the appointment of CoP and DCoP, it now boils downs to two basic questions: how independent really is the PSC? When will the political bickering and tinkering over the PSC, its functions and the police service end?
Amazingly, Legal Notice No 277, with Stuart Young’s inclusion of “seniority” as an additional criterion, was approved by Cabinet and published on November 25. Apparently, within a few hours AG Al-Rawi’s Legal Notice dated November 26 swiftly removed “seniority.” Why? Did Cabinet approve this? Is Al-Rawi smarter than Young? Does the PSC have a view on this?
The PSC membership includes a group of experts in various fields to handle such matters. Mark described these two notices as a “recipe for chaos and confusion.” It is really the constitutional amendments to section 123 (via Act No 6 of 2006) that are really the source of past and present “chaos and confusion,” with more to come. Mark promised to take this matter “up to the Privy Council.”
Widespread suspicions recently arose over the infamous Legal Notice No 183, which curiously stated that whenever a vacancy arises in the offices of CoP or DCP, the PSC “may submit to the President a list of suitably qualified persons from amongst the ranks of the Police Service, including those on contract or previously on contract, as nominees to act” in such offices (Section 4). The court knocked down this section and its accompanying procedure as being superfluous. Important parliamentary time, taxpayers’ money and a “caught in the middle” PSC were again unduly involved.
And questions were again publicly raised in and out of Parliament: “Where did this ‘on contract’ come from, and why?” It appeared unduly particularised and under whose hands?
Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar cleverly inserted a lawyer's phrase. She said the new amendment promoted by AG Al-Rawi looked too “ad hominem,” as if crafted to suit one candidate. Whispers identified a “certain candidate,” one, according to subsequent events, that should have pleased Ms Persad-Bissessar. The PSC collapsed.
Anyhow, it came down to a matter of public trust. And this after Legal Notice No 218 of 2015 too was previously knocked down by the court for seemingly usurping the “independence” of the PSC. That rejected legal notice stated: “T
