Way cleared for Slowe to challenge President Ali sacking of PSC

Jul 15, 2022 News

---

– as Nandlall loses three rounds in bid to block case

Kaieteur News – The Full Court on Thursday threw out an application by Attorney General, Anil Nandlall intended to block former Police Service Commission Chairman Paul Slowe from challenging a decision by President Irfaan Ali to fire the entire commission last year and the failure of the Government of Guyana to recognise the promotion of 132 senior police officers from Inspector to Assistant Commissioner made by the said Commission.

Shortly after Ali sacked the commission, Slowe and the other commissioners moved to the court challenging the decision, but the life of the commission subsequently expired and Nandlall moved to the High Court before Justice Gino Persaud asking for the matter to be discharged as the commission was no longer in place. Justice Persaud however, on March 9, 2022 ruled that he found that the issues raised by Slowe and parties in the case are matters of public interest, supported by case law. According to Justice Persaud, the case should be heard and determined, on its merits, stressing that it is of public importance and interest. He added that the case would bring clarity on the role of the President’s executive power, and the issue of the legality of the President’s suspension of the PSC. In addition, to ensure the continuity of the case, Justice Persaud had substituted Slowe for the PSC.

Not satisfied, Nandlall appealed the ruling at the Full Court comprised of Justices: Priya Sewnarine-Beharry and Fidela Corbin-Lincoln, but he again failed in his bid and on May 25, 2022 in addition to adding Slowe as a party in the case the Full Court ruled thusly: “The expiration of the 3 year term of the members appointed to the Commission does not affect the body itself – established by Article 137 – save that the PSC will be unable to carry out its functions without appointed members. The PSC remains an existing constitutional body even if the term of its appointed members has expired. There is therefore no issue of the Commission ceasing to be an existing body or having no `capacity’ upon the expiration of the term of its appointed members.”

The effect of the term of the appointed members of the Commission becoming vacant is simply that there are currently no members to carry out its functions. This by itself is not a basis to strike out the claim under CPR (Civil Procedure Rules) 14.01. Members can be appointed at any time to continue to carry out the functions of the PSC. Upon their appointment, those members could determine whether to continue or discontinue the claim. Of course, a court would be entitled to take the continued non-appointment of members to the Commission as a basis to strike out the claim as an abuse of process as this would delay the prosecution of the action. “We therefore agree with the learned trial judge’s decision to refuse the application to strike out the claim on the basis of the expiration of the term of the members appointed to the PSC. “We do not find that the order as framed by the learned judge had the effect of permitting a private citizen to carry out the functions of the PSC – a constitutional body. It is clear from the reasoning of the learned trial judge that he found that Mr. Slowe had an interest in his own right and not that he was continuing the action on behalf of the PSC.”

“We fully agree with the learned trial judge’s reasoning as to why Paul Slowe is an interested party and should be added. However, we do not find that it was necessary to substitute Mr. Slowe in place of the PSC which remains an existing constitutional body albeit unable to function properly in the absence of appointed members. Based on the reasoning of the learned trial judge, Mr. Slowe should be added as a party in his own right.”

Still not satisfied, Nandlall made an application to the Full Court, asking for the decision to be stayed and for leave to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal. He advanced that “this matter is a public interest litigation and is of high public and constitutional importance.” In the application the Attorney General said that, “the addition of Paul Slowe as an applicant in these proceedings has serious ramifications not only for the determination of the substantive matter herein, but as well, for the filed and pending interlocutory applications in this matter, including the Urgent Notice of Application for Injunctive Relief against the Police Service Commission…and the Notice of Discontinuance filed on behalf of the police Service Commission.” However, his application was again denied yesterday (July 14, 2922) by Justices: Sewnarine-Beharry and Corbin-Lincoln. The Full Court ruled yesterday that it has “the right and a discretion to add any party to a proceeding whether by an application or of its own motion. That is not an issue that in the Court’s view raises any serious issues of law. This area of law of the Court deciding to add a party, an interesting party, is not an area of law in dispute nor does it raise any issue any of great public import in terms of the adding Mr. Slowe as a party. Having regard to those facts and having regard to the entirety of this Court’s decision, we are not of the view that the application of the Attorney General’s Chambers to appeal or for leave to appeal, we are not of the view that the grounds of appeal really raise any grounds that are of merit and therefore we would refuse leave to appeal and the application for a stay.” Cost was awarded of $75,000 to Mr. Slowe to be paid by July 29, 2022. Slowe was represented by Selwyn Pieters, Dexter Todd and Dexter Smartt. The Attorney General appeared alongside, Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, Chevy Devonish and Arti Outar.

 

 

 

---

---