Reginald Dumas
THE REPORT of the chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC) contained in the commission’s 2022 Annual Report makes interesting and, at times, surprising reading. It states at the outset that, in the PSC’s view, “the time has come for it to have more meaningful oversight of the (TT) Police Service.” It then makes a number of recommendations to that end, pointing out, however, that “the purpose of (the) recommendations is not to interfere with the commissioner’s managerial role but rather to provide strategic support to the commissioner in this regard.”
The Constitution does, at section 123A(1), confer “complete power” on the commissioner to manage the service. But that “complete power” is subject to section 123 (1), which itself sets out a number of functions with which the PSC is vested. One of them is the “power” to “hear and determine appeals from decisions of the (police commissioner)” in certain matters. It seems, therefore, that the commissioner’s “complete power” is not at all “complete.”
The chairman’s report outlines the 2006 constitutional amendments concerning the PSC, and speaks of a new structure for the commission approved by the Cabinet following those amendments and the 2007 report of the TT Police Service Transformation Project.
I suspect the country doesn’t know the genesis of all that activity. I therefore suggest a reading of pages 76 to 84 and 334 to 338 of The Public Service and Service Commissions, the invaluable book by the late Kenneth Lalla, who for years chaired both the Public and Police Service Commissions. I could add one or two things to what he wrote, but all I’ll say now, with apologies to William Congreve, is that “hell hath no fury like a self-important politician whose ego has been bruised.”
In the context of “support” to the commissioner, the PSC says it “is of the opinion that one of the ways to improve the present situation is to create a more effective oversight body which provides structured assistance to the commissioner in the management of the police service.” Apparently, the PSC is to be that body.
It also says that an “input in the creation of policies for the development and training of officers generally, and, in particular, for leadership positions will enhance the commission’s ability to recruit and select effective leaders from within the organisation.”
It adds that, to help it “appoint the most effective leader from within the ranks of the police service, (it should have) a strategic role in establishing the training requirements for members of the…service.” This is “crucial,” it says.
Although, where appointments in the police service are concerned, the PSC’s constitutional power is now limited to the posts of commissioner and deputy commissioner, the PSC feels that, “at the very least, (it should) be monitoring the performance” of assistant commissioners as well, and indeed that it should be “consulted on the criteria…for appointment” to the service’s top offices.
Noting that, remarkably, all but one of the people appoint
