Latest update November 5th, 2024 1:00 AM
Sep 16, 2018 News
Confidential records that included ‘years of indiscipline’ were made available to the Police Service Commission (PSC) and worked against David Ramnarine’s appointment as the substantive Commissioner of Police.
Chairman of the PSC, Paul Slowe, shed light on the process that led to the consultation with President David Granger and the ensuing appointment of Leslie James as the Commissioner of Police.
“I am not at liberty to go into all the details. Suffice it to say that interviews were held with the candidates,” Slowe stated.
Also approved to assist James, were four Deputy Commissioners – Lyndon Alves, Maxine Graham, Nigel Hoppie and Paul Williams.
The search for a new top cop commenced when Seelall Persaud retired in February.
Back in April, eight Assistant Commissioners participated in a process at the Ministry of the Presidency that included a written test and interviews by a panel that consisted of the President along with Public Security Minister, Khemraj Ramjattan.
The eight included the five appointees, Ramnarine and Assistant Commissioners Clifton Hicken and Marlon Chapman.
Ramnarine, Hicken and Chapman were not shortlisted by the President when he communicated with Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo before appointing James on August 29.
Slowe, a former Assistant Commissioner of Police, stated that the PSC approved of the five eventual appointees, pointing out that their personal and confidential files were perused by members of the PSC.
There have been questions regarding why Ramnarine, as the most senior officer vying for the top post, was not appointed. Further, the fact that he acted as the Commissioner meant that he had reasonable expectations. The President would only publicly say that there were ‘specific reasons’ for not choosing Ramnarine.
“In the case of Ramnarine, there were some disturbing trends in the file and the Commission agreed that those things would have precluded him from being appointed to the post,” Slowe explained.
While Slowe refused to discuss those trends citing security reasons, Kaieteur News understands that Ramnarine’s file highlighted ‘indiscipline actions over the years’. It was felt that the eventual leader of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) should be one who demonstrated the ability to respect senior officers.
Slowe maintained that he was not solely responsible for the decisions although the Constitution mandates that the President consult with the Chairman of the PSC.
“It wasn’t the Chairman who made the selection, but the Commission. The Commission agreed with the recommendations that were made for the five persons who were subsequently appointed,” Slowe noted.
There were suggestions that Ramnarine was bypassed by the Slowe-led PSC as a result of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the plot to assassinate the President. Slowe headed the CoI, which recommended stern actions against Ramnarine, Hicken and other senior officers of the GPF, including removal from office.
Slowe said that he recused himself from the interviews with Ramnarine and Hicken.
“In fairness to the whole process when it came to the discussions of Mr. Ramnarine and the interview, I was not a part of that, and Mr. Hicken, I was not part of that also,” Slowe noted.
Ramnarine said he is proceeding on a much-deserved annual leave, and will be contemplating his options.
October 1st turn off your lights to bring about a change!
Nov 05, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports- With less than two weeks before the Golden Jaguars meet Barbados in back-to-back encounters that could shape their Gold Cup destiny, the Guyana Football...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- No one, not even the staunchest supporters of Guyana’s electoral process, would claim... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]