Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Chief Justice dismisses challenge to Police 2020 promotion

…says need for comprehensive regulation governing disciplinary, promotion procedure

Senior Superintendent of Police Calvin Brutus has failed in his bid to quash the promotion of several senior officers who were promoted in front of him to Assistant Commissioner of Police as Chief Justice Roxane George dismissed his application on Monday. Back in December 2020, Brutus, through his lawyer, CV Satram, moved to the High Court to challenge the promotions by the Police Service Commission (PSC).

https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Roxane-George-1-296x300.jpg

Acting Chief Justice Roxane George

Following the initial challenge, several other senior officers were added as interested parties. Brutus complained that he was being bypassed for promotion even though he was recommended by the Commissioner of Police and owing to frivolous pending allegations of indiscipline against him.

Brutus had sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the PSC to promote over him, Senior Superintendents of Police Edmond Cooper, Phillip Azore, and Kurleigh Simon, who like him, have pending disciplinary matters, to the rank of Assistant Commissioner.

“The allegation was essentially that I wrote the [then] Minister of State without the permission of the Commissioner of Police,” Brutus deposed in an affidavit.

He further deposed that Cooper, Azore, and Simon are facing serious disciplinary and/or criminal investigations for dereliction of duty, facilitation of unlawful activities, perverting the course of justice, corruption by a public officer, among other offences.

https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/brutus-1-284x420.jpg

Senior Superintendent of Police Calvin Brutus

Brutus had asked for an order nullifying the promotion of his colleagues. In the end, Justice George dismissed Brutus’ application having found that there was no evidence to justify the orders and declaration he was asking the court to grant.

Besides asking the court to grant an order overruling the PSC’s practice of not promoting officers with pending disciplinary matters, Brutus was also seeking a consequential order directing the PSC to appoint him to the office of Assistant Commissioner. None of these orders were granted.

Uphold Constitution

The Chief Justice said that the PSC is duty-bound to conduct investigations regarding the allegations against Brutus and the other aggrieved officers expeditiously. She said that the purpose of having investigations done as soon as practicable would conform with Article 144 of the Constitution of Guyana which makes a fair hearing within a reasonable time a fundamental right.

“It is, therefore, to be expected that there would be reasonable expediency in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings against the officers affected. More so as it is known that there is a policy that such proceedings can stymie an officer’s prospects of promotion. It would be reasonable that officers so accused would want to clear their names and in the public interest any allegation of misconduct must be investigated so that the public can have confidence in the Guyana Police Force,” she noted.

According to her, it is the PSC that has the control and drive over the investigation process, even where it has delegated its disciplinary powers to an officer. “The Commission as an entity established by and subjected by the Constitution must endeavour to uphold Article 144.”

Justice George pointed out that she did not find that the PSC must, as a matter of law, ignore disciplinary proceedings against officers when it comes to its decision-making as regards promotions.

Nothing unlawful

With regards to Brutus’ request for the PSC’s “blanket policy” of not promoting ranks with pending disciplinary matters to be deemed unlawful, Justice George said that granting such an order could result in a general proposition that would not only affect the PSC but all the other service commissions. They are the Public, Teaching, and Judicial Service Commissions.

“It would be a major usurpation of the powers and authority of the [PSC] for the court to rule in such a sweeping fashion that one of the four constitutional Commissions…must ignore disciplinary matters against officers when considering their suitability for promotion,” the Chief Justice added.

She continued, “To do so would fly in the face of the express authority given to the Commission pursuant to Article 212 to address issues of disciplining persons falling under its purview.” According to her, the court cannot say that the PSC acted unlawfully in taking into consideration disciplinary matters.

She ruled that to so hold will not only usurp the authority of the Commission as regards to disciplining officers but would create a particularly dangerous precedent not only for this Commission but for the other service commission.

Justice George reasoned that the key to addressing the issue of discipline and its impact on the promotion of officers and ranks is to have these issues dealt with expeditiously. “There is nothing unfair in the Commission or any employer for that matter taking into consideration disciplinary issues in determining whether an employee should be promoted.”

She pointed out that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the disciplinary cases against the aggrieved officers are minor and she cannot act on their opinion that their matters are trivial or frivolous.

“It would not be for this court to determine what is a minor or serious infraction. This would require the court to embark on a fact-finding investigation that is solely within the power of the Commission. These matters will have to be addressed by detailed regulations on promotions,” the Chief Justice noted.

Comprehensive regulation

According to Justice George, this case highlights a “poor and haphazard system of dealing with disciplinary matters against Police officers.” She said that the case also highlights the need for comprehensive regulation governing the disciplinary procedure and promotions respectively including clarity on what infractions could affect such promotions.

“The circumstances that have led to these applications are most unfortunate to say the least. They do not augur well for the overall management and well-being of the Guyana Police Force,” she said, adding that the determination of this case will not assuage what are clearly deep-seated feelings of distrust and mistrust in the Guyana Police Force.

“Unfortunately for the sake of good governance of the Force, some rapprochement will have to be found. However, in coming to this decision, such is not the duty or jurisdiction of the court.”

No legitimate expectation

The Chief Justice had to determine whether Brutus and the other officers had a legitimate expectation to be promoted as they contended that this expectation arose from decade-old practices of the PSC.

Brutus had submitted that the PSC would usually rely on recommendations for promotion submitted to it by the Commissioner of Police. Brutus had contended that the PSC must provide officers who were recommended for but not promoted, with reasoning for departing from this established practice.

But Justice George found that this contention had no merit as there was no prima facie evidence that the promotion Board, the PSC, or the Top Cop “held out any promise or promoted any policy that made it mandatory that it accepts the recommendation of the Board through the Commissioner.”

She held that to say that the PSC must be bound by what Brutus and the others contend is a settled practice “would be to place a fetter on the discretion of the Commission as regard to its decision making.”

“[They] have not provided evidence that it is a settled practice that an officer will be promoted based on the fact that his/her name is on the recommendation list.”

Relying on case laws in which it was noted that there is no legitimate expectation to be promoted, the Chief Justice further held, “A person may be entitled to be considered for promotion, but is not entitled to be promoted.”

Under Article 212 of the Constitution, the Police Service Commission is empowered to promote Police ranks above the rank of Inspector. It also has the authority to exercise disciplinary control over ranks holding or acting in such offices. (G1)

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Govt rejects Police promotion list released by suspended PSC

The Government on Monday rejected as unlawful and illegal, a list of purported promotions of members of the Guyana Police Force by the Police Service Commission (PSC). This is according to a statement by Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC.

https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Irfaan-Ali-5-1536x1004.jpg

President Dr Irfaan Ali

Nandlall reminded that the PSC was suspended by President Dr Irfaan Ali on June 16, 2021, in the exercise of powers conferred upon him by the Constitution of Guyana. This decision of the President was communicated to each member of the PSC by a letter bearing that date which was dispatched and received, the Attorney General disclosed.

According to Nandlall, “The said decision of the President can only be rescinded, revoked, set-aside, or reversed by the President himself, or by a court of competent jurisdiction. No person, let alone, a constitutional commission, will be allowed to become judge, jury, and executioner in our constitutional democracy. The Rule of Law simply does not permit it.”

https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Anil-3-696x868.jpg

Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC

He pointed out that attempts by the PSC, therefore, to countermand, disobey and disregard the President’s decision, not only amounts to an effrontery to the highest executive office in this land but is simply absurd. “If anyone had any doubts about the independence and rectitude of this grouping who constitute the Police Service Commission, those doubts should now be put to rest.”

Nandlall added that it must be made clear that nothing in the ruling rendered by the Chief Justice in the case challenging the Police 2020 promotions gives legitimacy to the purported list of promotions issued by the PSC or any such list, as suggested in certain segments of the press.

In fact, the Attorney General noted that one of the grounds that the PSC proffered in opposition to the case brought by Senior Superintendent of Police Calvin Brutus is that “the Commission has not made a final decision regarding promotions.’’

“In the circumstances, this purported list of promotions of members of the Guyana Police Force will be ignored,” the statement by Nandlall reads.

https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Slowe-1536x1007.jpg

PSC Chairman, Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Slowe

The Chairman of the PSC, Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Slowe, several members of the Commission, and retired and serving officers are currently facing criminal charges before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts. They have been implicated in a $10 million fraud over duties delegated to them for revising the Police Force’s Standing Order.

It is alleged that the officers collected payments amounting to $10 million, but never provided the Force with a revised Standing Order. Prime Minister Mark Phillips has written to Slowe and the PSC’s Commissioners at least twice, asking them to show cause why they should not be removed. (G1)

FM

Police Service Commission rejects suspension as unlawful, announces promotions

-gov’t says will ignore

June 29 ,2021

Source

Paul Slowe

Paul Slowe

Contending that President Irfaan Ali acted unconstitutionally in their suspension, the Police Service Commission (PSC) Chair-man Paul Slowe and other commissioners yesterday proceeded to announce the promotion of 132 ranks.

The announcement followed a court ruling that dismissed a challenge to the promotions.

In response to the announcement, the PPP/C-led government yesterday rejected the promotions, calling them “unlawful and illegal.”

By way of a letter, attorney Selwyn Pieters, who is representing Slowe and commissioners Clinton Conway, Claire Jarvis, Michael Somersall and Vesta Adams, notified President Ali that his purported suspension of them was ultra vires Article 225 of the Constitution, since a tribunal to probe their removal had not yet been established and he had not been properly advised to act by the legally defined “prescribed authority.”

On the tribunal, Pieters pointed out that with no Judicial Service Commis-sion in place, there is no avenue to set up a tribunal, which is required by law to iron out the issues with the PSC.

“The Police Service Commission will therefore continue to perform its constitutional mandate in respect to discipline and promotion of Guyana Police Force officers from Inspectors to Assistant Commissioners,” he said in his letter, which was seen by this newspaper.

The attorney further argued that although the President can suspend the commissioners via his executive powers, he can only do so on the “advice of the prescribed authority.” “It is clear from the provisions that Your Excellency’s purported suspension of the Chair-man and other members of the Commission is contrary to the Constitution in two respects: first, because the question of removal from office has not yet “been referred to a tribunal”; and second, because, for all members other than the chairman, you have not acted “in accordance with the advice of the prescribed authority” with respect to the suspensions,” Pieters stated.

Article 225(6) states, “If the question of removing the officer from office has been referred  to  a  tribunal  under  this  article,  the  President,  acting  in accordance with the advice of the prescribed authority, may suspend the officer  from  performing  the  functions  of  his  office,  and  any  such suspension  may  at  any  time  be  revoked  by  the  President,  acting  in accordance  with  such  advice  as  aforesaid,  and  shall  in  any  case  cease to have effect if the tribunal recommends to the President that the officer should not be removed from office.”

As a result, the attorney called the suspensions premature.

Meanwhile, following the ruling by Chief Justice Roxane George yesterday throwing out a challenge by Senior Superintendent of Police Calvin Brutus to the intended promotions, (see other story on page 13) the PSC released the list of promotions.

The promotions list is headed by six Senior Superintendents, who have each been promoted to Assistant Commissioner of Police. They are: Ravindradat Budhram, Errol Watts, Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum, Edmond Cooper, Philip Azore and Kurleigh Simon.

Brutus had also asked that the court quash the promotion of Cooper, Azore and Simon, all Senior Superintendents of Police who were yesterday promoted to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police. In his application to the court, Brutus had asked for a declaration that the policy of the PSC not to promote or consider for promotion ranks with pending disciplinary matters before it is unlawful; a declaration that he is entitled to be promoted to the office of Assistant Com-missioner of Police; and an order cancelling the decision of the PSC denying his appointment to the office of Assistant Com-missioner of Police. It was alleged by the Deputy Commissioner of Adminis-tration that Brutus committed a breach of discipline in 2019.

At a press briefing yesterday, Slowe said the dismissal of the court challenge paved the way for the announcement of the promotions. The list of officers promoted, he said, was sent to acting Commis-sioner of Police Nigel Hoppie.

Countermanding

However, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, in a statement on behalf of government, accused the PSC of countermanding, disobeying and disregarding the President’s decision, which he said “not only amounts to an effrontery to the highest executive office in this land, but is simply absurd.”

The statement advanced that the ruling by the Chief Justice does not give legitimacy to the purported list of promotions issued by the PSC or any such list.

“In fact, one of the grounds that the Police Service Commission proffered in opposition to the case brought by Mr. Brutus is that ‘the Commission has not made a final decision regarding promotions.’ In the circumstances, this purported list of promotions of members of the Guyana Police Force will be ignored,” the statement added.

During the brief press engagement yesterday, Pieters said the members of the commission have acted judicially and performed the functions which come with their office and have no reason to seek the court’s attention. Pieters was responding to a question posed by Stabroek News as to what happens if President Ali holds firm to his actions.

“They have made the promotions that they did and their job in that respect is finished. If the President wants to challenge… it’s [his] prerogative to refer the matter to the court for determination. The members of the commission are confident that should you do so, any court will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that Article 225 does not enable you to suspend members in that manner you have purported to do,” he said.

He went on to state that the commissioners have a strong legal basis to proceed should they have to defend themselves in court.

“The commission has made the promotions in accordance of the decision of the court today and no one can go back on that. Their work is done,” Pieters added.

On June 17, Ali suspended all five members of the PSC with immediate effect pending an investigation. The president informed the PSC members that a tribunal will be established to conduct an investigation.

In the letter addressed to Conway, Ali noted that the decision was taken based on advice given by Prime Minister Mark Phillips.

“In the circumstances, you are hereby suspended with immediate effect from performing the functions of Member of the Police Service Commission pending the establishment of the aforementioned tribunal,” the letter said.

Django

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Your Excellency’s Attempt to Suspend Mr. Paul Esmond Slowe, CCH, DSM, JP, Chairman, and Commissioners Mr. Michael Somersall, CCH, DSM, JP, Mrs. Claire Alexis Jarvis, Mrs. Vesta Adams and Mr. Clinton Andrew Conway of the Police Service Commission

https://selwynpieters.blogspot...aTH2tOwYOaG8CAgFwUQc

May be an image of 1 person, beard and indoor

Selwyn Pieters.

June 28, 2021,

by whatsapp and email

His Excellency Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali

President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana

Office of the President

Shiv Chanderpaul Drive & South Road

Bourda, Georgetown, Guyana

Dear Excellency, President Ali,

RE: Your Excellency’s Attempt to Suspend Mr. Paul Esmond Slowe, CCH, DSM, JP, Chairman, and Commissioners Mr. Michael Somersall, CCH, DSM, JP, Mrs. Claire Alexis Jarvis, Mrs. Vesta Adams and Mr. Clinton Andrew Conway of the Police Service Commission

I write on behalf of my clients Mr. Paul Esmond Slowe, CCH, DSM, JP, Chairman, and Commissioners Mr. Michael Somersall, CCH, DSM, JP, Mrs. Claire Alexis Jarvis, Mrs. Vesta Adams, and Mr. Clinton Andrew Conway of the Police Service Commission (“the Commission”) in response to your letters to each of the aforementioned dated June 16, 2021.

In each of your letters, Your Excellency states that you have been advised by Prime Minister The Honourable Mark Anthony Phillips, MSS, to initiate an investigation into the question of the Commission members’ removal from office, and to suspend them “from performing the functions of that office with immediate effect pending those investigations.” You attach two letters from the Prime Minister, both dated June 15, 2021, reiterating the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notices of May 19, 2021 and June 1, 2021 and containing the aforementioned advice.

You further state in your letters to the members of the Commission that you have accepted the Prime Minister’s advice “and shall establish a tribunal in the manner prescribed by Article 225”[1] to inquire and report on the matter of the proposed removal, and that the members of the Commission “are hereby suspended with immediate effect from performing the functions of [office] pending the establishment of the aforementioned tribunal.”

You have also been publicly quoted as saying “I’m following the Constitutional process that is outlined in dealing with these matters, and that’s all I am doing. I have no intention of breaching the Constitutional process. There is a Constitutional process in which to deal with all these allegations that have been made against members of the Commission and that is what has been triggered, nothing more than that…”[2]

For the reasons that follow, I have advised the members of the Commission that the purported suspensions asserted by Your Excellency in these letters are manifestly ultra vires Article 225 of the Constitution, unlawful, illegal, premature and of no legal force, import or effect. I could come to no other conclusion having regard to the relevant provisions, and in particular Articles 225(6) and 210(3).

The Purported Suspensions of the Commission Members are Ultra Vires the Constitution

As you are aware, and as I have stated in our submissions in response to the various Show Cause Notices of May 19, 2021 and June 1, 2021, suspension and removal from office at a Constitutional Commission are regulated by Article 225 of the Constitution, of which paragraph (1) states, “a person holding such office… shall not be removed therefrom or suspended from the exercise of the functions thereof except in accordance with the provisions of this article.” [3] [4] [5]

Suspensions under Article 225 are controlled by paragraph (6), which reads in full:

(6) If the question of removing the officer from office has been referred to a tribunal under this article, the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the prescribed authority, may suspend the officer from performing the functions of his office, and any such suspension may at any time be revoked by the President, acting in accordance with such advice as aforesaid, and shall in any case cease to have effect if the tribunal recommends to the President that the officer should not be removed from office.

In accordance with this paragraph, while you can in certain circumstances suspend members of the Commission, you may only do so “with the advice of the prescribed authority”, and only if the question of removal “has been referred to a tribunal.”

As to who “the prescribed authority” empowered to recommend suspension is for each of the members of the Commission, I refer you to Article 210(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the Police Service Commission specifically and states:

(3) The provisions of article 225 (which relate to removal from office) shall apply to the office of an appointed member of the Police Service Commission. In the case of an appointed member other than the Chairman, the prescribed authority for the purposes of paragraph (4) of that article shall be the Prime Minister or the Chairman and for the purposes of paragraph (6) of that article shall be the Chairman. In the case of the Chairman the prescribed authority for the purposes of paragraphs (4) and (6) of article 225 shall be the Prime Minister.

It is clear from the above provisions that Your Excellency’s purported suspension of the Chairman and other members of the Commission is contrary to the Constitution in two respects: first, because the question of removal from office has not yet been “been referred to a tribunal”; and second, because, for all members other than the Chairman, you have not acted “in accordance with the advice of the prescribed authority” with respect to the suspensions.

The Suspensions Are Premature

Regarding the first issue of referral to a tribunal, Article 225(6) clearly states that suspension is only an option once “the question of removing the officer from office has been referred to a tribunal under this article.” However, Your Excellency purports in your letter to suspend the members of the Commission “pending the establishment of the aforementioned tribunal” and states that you “shall establish a tribunal in the manner prescribed by Article 225.”

Respectfully, Your Excellency has no such power. Clearly, one cannot refer a question to a tribunal that does not yet exist. The proposed suspensions of the members of the Commission are therefore all premature, null, void and ultra vires Article 225.

It must also be noted that paragraph (4) of Article 225 dictates the process for appointing the tribunal to inquire into a proposed removal from office. This paragraph requires you to “act in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, in appointing a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members, selected by the Judicial Service Commission from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge….”

At present, there is no Judicial Service Commission, with the last such Commission having come to an end in 2017. Accordingly, in order for Your Excellency to appoint a tribunal to whom you may refer the question of removal, as required by Article 225(4) and (6), a Judicial Service Commission should be constituted.

I attach, for your reference by way of precedent, a record of the last “Appointment of a Tribunal Under Article 225(4) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana”, published in the Official Gazette of September 17, 2016 and concerning Mr. Carvil Duncan, then Chairman of the Public Service Commission, member of the Judicial Service Commission and member of the Police Service Commission. That tribunal was appointed “To inquire, investigate and recommend to the President whether [Mr. Duncan] ought to be removed from office” in accordance with Article 225(2).

That order by the President’s Command included the specific allegations against Mr. Duncan, the members of the tribunal and the specific mandate of the tribunal, including the required report and advice and timeline for the investigation. Only thus may such a matter be properly “referred to a tribunal” in satisfaction of Article 225(6).

As you will be aware, Mr. Duncan subsequently challenged the establishment of that tribunal as premature and prejudicial, and in October 2016, was successful in having the work of the tribunal suspended on procedural and substantive grounds.[6] Mr. Duncan was represented in that matter by the current Attorney General, Mr. Anil Nandlall.

The suspensions referred to in Your Excellency’s letters, being ordered before the referral of the removal question to a tribunal, which indeed does not exist (and cannot exist in the absence of a duly appointed and functioning Judicial Services Commission), are without lawful authority and of no force or effect.

You Have Not Acted “In Accordance with the Advice of the Prescribed Authority”

The second reason why the Constitution cannot countenance the purported suspensions of the members of the Commission is that Your Excellency has not acted “in accordance with the advice of the prescribed authority” as required by Article 225(6), except in the proposed suspension of Chairman Paul Slowe.

As indicated above, under Articles 225(6) and 210(3) jointly, the Prime Minister may advise the President to suspend the Chairman of the Commission, but not to suspend the other members. Rather, for the President to suspend these other members, the “prescribed authority” who must so advise him is the Chairman himself, while the Prime Minister can only advise the President with respect to these other members under paragraph (4) (appointment of a tribunal), not paragraph (6) (suspension of officers).

The Chairman, Mr. Paul Slowe, has not advised Your Excellency to suspend the other members of the Commission. These suspensions are therefore contrary to Article 225 and of no lawful force and/or effect, even if the removal question had been referred to a tribunal.

Summing Up and Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, it is clear that Your Excellency has not acted in accordance with Article 225, which is the only lawful means for suspending a member of a Constitutional Commission. In consequence, the purported suspensions of the Chairman and other members of the Commission are ultra vires the constitution, unlawful, illegal, premature and of no legal force, import or effect.

In other words, the members of the Commission have not been lawfully suspended from performing the functions of their offices and may therefore continue to do so. They have advised me that they intend to remain in office until such time as their terms are over or they are lawfully suspended or removed from office following referral of the question to a duly appointed tribunal.

Having regard to the unconstitutional and illegal suspensions discussed above, Article 227 provides:

  1. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, in the exercise of its functions under this Constitution a Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.

(2) Subject to affirmative resolution of the National Assembly, a commission shall make rules, relating to the procedure of the commission; and until such rules are made, the commission shall regulate its own procedure.

(3) A Commission may, subject to the next following paragraph, act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership or the absence of any member and its proceedings shall not be invalidated by the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in those proceedings.

The Police Service Commission will therefore continue to perform its constitutional mandate in respect to discipline and promotion of Guyana Police Force Officers from Inspectors to Assistant Commissioners.

If Your Excellency is not in agreement with the above, it is your prerogative to refer the matter to the courts for determination. The members of the Commission are confident that, should you do so, any court will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that Article 225 does not enable you to suspend the members in the manner that you have purported to do.

Moreover, it must be noted that, should the matter be referred to a court, the various issues of procedural fairness, independence of Commissions under Article 226 of the Constitution, insulation of Commissions in accordance with Endell Thomas v Attorney General (Trinidad & Tobago),[7] and the fundamental Constitutional rights of freedom of association (Article 147(1)) and the presumption of innocence (144(1)), must also inform the court’s determination. By necessity, the court will consider the question of suspension in its full factual context, including the history of inappropriate, unconstitutional political interference by Your Excellency’s administration, outlined in detail in Mr. Slowe’s submissions dated May 31, 2021 and beginning with the attempt by Your Excellency to pressure the Commission to promote certain ineligible ranks friendly to the current government. [8] [9]

To the extent that Your Excellency’s attempt to suspend the members of the Commission is related to the upcoming decision of High Court Chief Justice George, anticipated June 18, 2021 (now postponed to June 28, 2021), in the application of Senior Superintendent Calvin Brutus and other senior police officers, it represents yet another attempt at inappropriate and unconstitutional political interference with the apparent goal of seizing control of promotions within the Guyana Police Force, a matter that is properly within the exclusive control of the Commission.

With respect to this latest assault on the Commission and its independence, I refer you to the words of the current Attorney General, Mr. Nandlall, in an article he published on October 16, 2016 with regard to the aforementioned investigation into Mr. Carvil Duncan and the alleged attempts by then President Granger to circumvent Article 225:

In short, the President has flagrantly violated the letter, spirit and intent of some of the most sacrosanct constitutional provisions and indeed his actions strike at the very heart of our constitutional democracy. Presidents (or Prime Ministers, as the case may be) have been impeached for far less in democratic countries.[10]

Fortunately, the Constitution provides clear and unambiguous protection against interference of this kind with respect to suspensions from office at Constitutional Commissions.

The members of the Commission will continue to do their important work until their terms end on August 09, 2021.

In the meantime, please contact me directly in the event you would like to discuss the above or any collateral matters.

Yours truly,

Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.

Lawyer & Notary Public

Attorney-at-Law

Of the Bars of Guyana,

Trinidad and Tobago and Ontario (Canada)

cc Clients

     Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs

     Prime Minister of Guyana

     Secretary, Police Service Commission

     Legal Officer, Public/Police Service Commission

     Commissioner of Police

[1] Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01, Laws of Guyana.

[2] President defends decision to suspend entire Police Service Commission, (June 18, 2021) Online: News Source Guyana <https://newssourcegy.com/news/...-service-commission/>

[3] See the Submissions of Paul Esmond Slowe, dated May 31, 2021, in response to the May 19, 2021 Show Cause Notice.

[4] See the Submissions of Clinton Andrew Conway, dated May 31, 2021, in response to the May 19, 2021 Show Cause Notice.

[5] See Joint Submissions of Mr. Paul Esmond Slowe, CCH, DSM, JP, Chairman, and Commissioners Michael Somersall, DSM, Clinton Andrew Conway, Claire Alexis Jarvis, and Vesta Adams of the Police Service Commission (“the Commission”), dated June 08, 2021, in respect to the Show Cause Notice letters of June 1, 2021.

[6] Denis Chabrol, “Carvil Duncan blocks Tribunal from proceeding with removal hearing” (October 20, 2016), online: Demerara Waves <https://demerarawaves.com/2016...with-removal-hearing>

[7] [1981] UKPC 28.

[8] Affidavit of Paul Esmond Slowe, affirmed May 28, 2021, [“Slowe Affidavit”]

[9] Affidavit of Paul Esmond Slowe, affirmed June 7, 2021, [“Slowe Second Affidavit”]

[10] Anil Nandlall, “President violated constitutional provisions in moving against Carvil Duncan” (October 15, 2016), online: Stabroek News <https://www.stabroeknews.com/2016/10/15/opinion/letters/president-violated-constitutional-provisions-moving-carvil-duncan/>.

Django

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×