Appointment of CoP Episode 2:The Flawed System Created in 2006 Further Exposed

Here we go again. Another Episode in the saga of the appointment of a Commissioner of Police.
Dateline July 2: The President submits Notification of Nomination for appointment of CoP, together with 2 letters from the Chair of the Police Service Commission (PolSC), pursuant to s.123 of the Constitution.
Dateline July 3:  Leader of Government Business in motion to adjourn the House – “I am informed by the Clerk that a document has come to the Parliament regarding a Notification for appointment to the office of Commissioner of Police. In this House we have determined….any recommendations coming out of that flawed process cannot and will not be accepted…..I have instructed the Clerk that this matter will not be proceeded with”.
              Chaguanas West MP: This is ‘really a subversion of the Constitution’.
Dateline July 4:  Headline - House to debate motion on 2nd-ranked CoP nominee.Flashback:  House Order Paper for February 2, 2018 PAPERS – Notification for nomination to the Office of Commissioner of Police.
Why Are We Here?
Background: The Constitution. s.123(4) – The President shall issue a Notification in respect of each person nominated under subsection (3) and the Notification shall be subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Representatives.
Legal Notice 218 of 2015 - THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SELECTION PROCESS) ORDER, 2015 UNDER SECTION 123(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION:
4. (1) Where, in relation to clause 3(f), the House of Representatives does not approve of the highest graded candidate on the Order of Merit List pursuant to section 123 of the Constitution, subsequent nominations in order of merit may be submitted to the House of Representatives from the Order of Merit List only in accordance with the procedure set out in the Constitution.
Developments: On February 2, rather than reject the Nominations for CoP and DCoP, as s.123(4) of the Constitution mandates (shall), the House (on both sides) set up a Special Select Committee to review the PolSC’s recruitment process.
While the SSC proceedings and report make NO reference to any land issue concerning the nominee for CoP, the opportunity was taken to assault his character in the media and otherwise over that irrelevant issue.
The Government side of the House (after the Opposition walked out) decided that the process was flawed and the process would be referred back to the PolSC for its review and to propose changes, according to the PM.
The nomination for CoP was rejected.
Subsequently, on 102FM on a Sunday morning, Junior Minister in the Ministry of the AG and Legal Affairs, Hinds, told the public that Government was reviewing the selection process. He said, the Government wants to include publishing the names and photos of the applicants to allow the public to comment on them; like is done for Police recruits.
Now, all of this condemnation of the PolSC and denunciation of ‘flawed process” from which “recommendations…cannot and will not be accepted” is simply reversed because the present Chair of the PolSC has said the Commission “simply doesn’t have the money, time and other resources to allocate to conducting a completely new process.” in a letter which was sent together with the Nomination Notice on July 2.
Did the Leader of Government Business and the Cabinet only read the PolSC’s letter after her “instruction to the Clerk”, contrary to the provisions of s.123(4) of the Constitution and Legal Notice 218 of 2015?
Is the lack of “money, time and other resources” an acceptable reason, to Government, to turn away from it’s ‘flawed process’ position and agree to debate the Nomination Notice? Didn’t the Government consider the cost of a “completely new process” before it proceeded to attack the PolSC and the Nominations in February?
Or, has the possibility of a barrage of Court matters filed by one or more of the applicants in the last selection process if they start a fresh process only now occurred to the Government?
The Chaguanas MP was right to denounce the Leader of Government Business’ ‘Instruction to the Clerk” that the Nomination ‘will not be proceeded with” is completely contrary to the provisions of s.123 of the Constitution and 4(1) of Legal Notice 218 of 2015.
If the Government did not want the nominees for CoP and DCoP in February, all they had to do was not affirm, that is, veto the nominations as the Constitution allows them to do.
But, they wanted to score political points and people’s reputations in the process.
The Real Flaw in the Management of the Police Service
 The flaw in the entire management of the Police Service, not just in the recruitment process, which has failed to provide leadership in the face of runaway murderous criminality goes back to the so-called reform passed by the Parliament in 2006.
In 2006, the Parliament (Executive included) decided unanimously that it must:

1. approve the membership of the PolSC,
2. direct how it is to conduct its recruitment of the only few officers it left under its jurisdiction while the CoP who is given the powers it had over 7,000 officers and,
3. also decided who is to be CoP and DCoP using its veto.

The mess that was created then by the politicians is what is being reaped now in the failure to appoint a CoP and DCoP and the total failure of management in the Police Service.
But the Parliament (politicians) is pinning the blame for the mess on the PolSC and not itself (themselves).
The Special Select Committee also unanimously appointed by the politicians, usurped the judicial role in reviewing the process rather than the House doing what the Constitution requires it to do in relation to the appointment of CoP and DCoP.
Oh! What a tangled web has been weaved when politicians (red and yellow) set out to deceive!!
The politicians have made a mess of the Constitution and management of the Police Service and the citizens are paying for it with their lives.
This is an absolute disaster that requires the intervention of the body politic if it is to be corrected.
 
Clyde A Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal
of Our Society
 
July 5, 2018

---