Call for Presidential Intervention: Careful What You Ask For

Call for Presidential Intervention:
                     Careful What You Ask For
Undoubtedly enthused by the possibility of an interventionist/proactive Presidency after Monday’s inaugural address, the Prison Officers Association (POA) has given the 6th President of the Republic her “first assignment”.
Speaking on the issue of ongoing disciplinary process against 3 Prison Officers facing disciplinary charges in connection with a dramatic and fatal jailbreak in 2015, the president of the POA called on the Her Excellency to “intervene, look into and take action”.
He has, on another occasion, called on Her Excellency to “bring some form of resolution to the ongoing saga of the 2015 jailbreak”.
The reason for his exasperated call is what he described as “unconstitutional action” by the Public Service Commission in failing to disclose any investigator’s report or the name of the accuser in relation to the officers before a disciplinary tribunal on serious charges.
​
Fair Disciplinary Procedure
In the public service, of which the Prison Service is a part, public officers against whom allegations are made are first entitled to have the allegations investigated by an investigating officer appointed by an authorised officer within the service.
Depending on the circumstances and the seriousness of the allegations, the officer may be suspended or interdicted (required not to perform his duties) with or without a reduction in pay.
The investigating officer is required to submit a report of his findings within a specified timeframe. This report is submitted to the relevant Service Commission which shall lay disciplinary charges against the officer if the investigation warrants same.
The disciplinary charge or charges with sufficient detail of the allegations on which each charge is based so that the officer charged would know precisely what he is accused of.
A disciplinary tribunal is appointed to hear the evidence and find the facts and report its findings to the Commission, which determines the innocence or guilt of the officer and the appropriate penalty, where necessary.
This disciplinary procedure is governed by regulations of the Service Commission and is designed to ensure fairness, natural justice and protection of the rights of the officer accused.
These requirements of fairness and justice are often mistakenly believed to make disciplinary action against impossible. That is not the case.

The Case of the Three Officers
In this case of the 3 Prison Officers, who remain on suspension, are before a disciplinary tribunal to answer the charges against them.
Natural justice demands that they must have sufficient details in order to know precisely the case they must answer.
The POA’s complaint is that those details are not being provided denying their right to natural justice.
At the same time, it is now almost 3 years and the tribunal hearing is making little or no headway. Justice delayed is justice denied.
While claiming that the Service Commission is acting unconstitutionality, they are also inviting the intervention of the President.
It may be useful for the POA to carefully consider the implications of their call for Presidential intervention in a disciplinary matter or in the administrative affairs of the public service.
Firstly, the President has NO role in the disciplinary procedure in the public service outlined above.
Secondly, the Service Commission is accountable to a JSC of the Parliament, not the President.
Powers you think she has, she does not.
What ‘action’ does the Association expect the President to take?
Should the President respond positively to the Association’s call and get involved in the disciplinary process perceivably in the assistance of the accused officers, what is she to do?
What would prevent other Presidential incursions in such proceedings in the future and possibly in a manner not of assistance to others facing disciplinary charges?
There would have been good reason why the 5th President did not involve that office before.
If there is any breach of Constitutional rights or any unfairness or injustice in the process, those are matters that the Courts are fully capable and authorised to pronounce on.
The POA needs to be very careful what they are asking for.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
23 March 2018