Police Service Commission should not have promoted these ranks

Sep 25, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
I accept as generally correct and sound, former Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Satyanand’s point about article 212(1) of the Constitution, the Police (Discipline) Act Cap 17:01, the Police Compliants Authority Act, Cap 17:02 and the respective roles/functions of the PSC, the DPP, PCA and the CoP, including matters of delegation, and appeals.
However, he conveniently omits to mention that the PSc has absolutely no role or function as regards the recommending, charging or prosecuting of CRIMINAL offences (such as theft of fuel) as in the Criminal Law (offences) Act Cap 8:01; and/or Summary Jurisdiction (offences) Act Cap 8:01; and so its recommendation to the CoP in relation to that theft of fuel allegation was constitutionally misconceived, and outside its constitutional ambit.
I know that the theft of fuel allegation involves both a criminal and a disciplinary offence; but the DPPs recommendation must have been in respect of the criminal offence. And the PSC did not err on the side of taking disciplinary action, but rather, on the side of not taking disciplinary action.
I mentioned one other aspect not mentioned in the GCs editorial, or Clinton Conway’s letter. Readers (who are not lawyers) would be astonished to know that by article 226 (6), the Constitution itself has made the PSC to all practical purposes and intent, (if no fundamental right is involved) a law unto itself.
Because of article 226(6) as confirmed in case law (Thomas – dismissal of ASP by a PSC for disciplinary offences) even the Supreme Courts have no jurisdiction, or right, to inquire into the validity of the PSCs decision, once it is performing its article 212(1) functions/powers of, inter alia, “to exercise disciplinary control” (ie in relation to offences against discipline involving Inspector to Assistant Commissioner).
No matter how the conduct of senior ranks may be a discredit to the reputation of the force; no matter how senior ranks may have misconducted themselves in investigations touching and concerning the Head of State’s security, if ex hypothesi, the PSC instead of disciplining those ranks, rewards them with promotion, that PSC decision because of article 226(6) is final.
It cannot be successfully challenged in the Courts by the Government! And I submit that it is just such finality that also, implicitly, creates in the PSC, a correlative duty to vindicate the public trust, and avoid abuses of it. Such avoidance did not happen in this matter. Where so much for reaching power is entrusted, much is expected in its exercise.
I end with this: there seems to have been nurtured an Orwellian syndrome of unaccountability and irreproachability in some members of the GPF (as in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” ‘pigs’ being more equal than the other animals). That presents a clear and grave danger to our national security? Ranks could have been induced and permitted to think that they are not disciplinable. Society is the casualty. And it may well be the case, that this Orwellian syndrome explains the audacity of the now infamous phrase of “inherently incredible” in the just concluded Paul Slowe chaired COI.
In life, nothing is too farfetched; those misconducting ranks should all be made to watch a movie based on the real life Rwandan genocide of 1994.The notion might seem novel, but for me the Omesh Satyanand chaired PSC abuses of public trust are such as to amount to the crime of misfeasance/misconduct in public office (in a subsequent letter I will stir some points about this).
Maxwell E. Edwards

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News