Latest update February 3rd, 2025 5:50 AM
Latest News
- Public health and personal responsibility
- Officials and mining companies using corruption around licenses and contracts to deny citizens a fair share
- Govt. vows to protect foreign businesses in return for jobs and business opportunities
- Arab ministers reject Trump’s call to displace Palestinians from Gaza
- Simona Broomes launches new political party
The then Chairman of the Police Service Commission erred on this issue
Dear Editor,
I carefully read a curious article of September 5, 2017 under the caption, “Dismiss the charges…PSC orders Top Cop to dismiss DPP – recommended charges against officers”. According to the missive, in a letter dated July 14, 2017 and address to Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud, Chairman of the PSC, Omesh Satyanand said, “The Police Service Commission has reviewed a list of disciplinary matters at interviews held and has recommended that the following disciplinary matters should be dismissed, i.e. no charge should be instituted against the officers.”
The chairman listed the officers, their ranks, the nature of the matters, when the incidents occurred and the DDP recommendations. Officers and inspectors mentioned in the report were given a respite. This long list of alleged defaulters leaves me with the impression that there are not only reports of indiscipline at the apex of management in the Force but at its heart- the middle management. However, corrective action can be taken through fit and proper disciplinary procedure.
I perused the report several times. They were more questions than answers and the more I find out the less I know. Here are some burning questions: Was the order that no charge should be instituted against the officers and inspectors a decision of the chairman or the PSC as a whole?
Were the interviews conducted when the PSC was fully constituted or they were done solely by the chairman or with himself and two other members of the Commission present? Some of the beneficiaries of the altruistic decision of the chairman spoke about the one and one interview they had with him.
Are there any written records of the proceedings? Were the persons summoned by the PSC or they went on their own volition? Were the investigations into the alleged breaches of discipline so poorly done that the investigators did not adduce enough evidence to establish even a simple disciplinary charge into the twenty alleged acts of misconduct committed by seventeen officers and inspectors.
Were the story told by the accusers inherently incredibly? Were the alleged breaches of discipline so frivolous and vexatious that they were quickly dashed under the Chairman’s No Action red carpet? Is it a fact that the chairman has a better understanding and appreciation of legal issues than the DPP and or the chairman of the PCA who is an honourable and distinguished retired Chancellor of the Judiciary?
Why is it so easy for the chairman to blatantly disregard the recommendations of the DPP and the chairman of the PCA by just conducting interviews? Certainly, interviewing commanders and other senior officers is not in keeping with best practice, transparency or is the best method to dispose of disciplinary matters that had legal inputs from the DPP and the PCA. But, what about those long outstanding disciplinary matters that for years have been slow marching between the Police and the PSC.
They are hampering the promotions of several hard working ranks who could have been punished and by now qualify for promotion because they would have had a clean slate. To have disciplinary matters pending for over five years and using them to bar ranks from promotion is an abuse of due process. Why did the PSC abandon its well established and successful disciplinary procedure, that is to say the appointment of tribunals to inquire into disciplinary matters and for the tribunals to submit their resume of proceedings to the PSC for action to be taken as that Competent Disciplinary Authority deems fit?
The chairman cannot complain, because over the past two years the Commission appointed several tribunals. Through the pro active efforts of the police administration they all delivered the goods in good time. Why that extraordinary action taken by the chairman to nolle pros the matters? Is it a one – man Commission?
Was there or is there an ulterior motive?
Disciplinary action must be swift, certain and appropriate if it is be effective. Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice must not only be done but must appear to be done. The action taken by the chairman falls well within the ambit of a travesty of justice. Hopefully for the GPF, there will be positive and transparent changes in dealing with alleged breaches of discipline under the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17:01.
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Retired)
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The PPP/C’s greatest liability
Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- One might have expected that a ruling party basking in the largesse of oil wealth would chart... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
