A
alexk
Guest
All questions will be answered Monday.
That was the word from some ministers on whether the Government has flip-flopped on its position on the Police Service Commission’s process to select a Police Commissioner despite criticising it previously.
Contacted on the issue yesterday, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi said, “All questions will be answered in Monday’s debate (on the latest notification).”
Queries arose and continue after the Government recently rejected notifications for three people on PSC’s merit list for the post, arguing strongly against PSC selection process, but now there’s speculation the fourth-ranked nominee, former People’s Partnership National Security Minister Gary Griffith, may be approved when his notification is debated by Parliament on Monday.
The Government had rejected notification for DCP Deodat Dulalchan, DCP Harold Phillip and acting CoP Stephen Williams, ranked in that order.
Griffith was fourth-ranked out of the four nominees selected by the PSC under former chairman Dr Maria Gomes, an appointee of the last government.
On Wednesday, Communication Minister Stuart Young said despite the rejection of previous notifications, someone from the merit list could still be appointed.
In noting the first debate of the (Parliament’s) Special Select Committee (SSC) on the PSC’s selection process, Young noted, “....what was said about the process and also what took place in every single debate on this procedure and it was identified on each occasion what the issues were and what the difficulty with the process and procedures were.”
Last month, SSC chairman Fitzgerald Hinds, in debating the SSC’s report in Parliament, said there was an “unsafe, unsound and unsatisfactory procedure by the PSC in the process....it ought not, therefore, on that basis, to stand, perhaps because of all of its flaw and imperfections, nothing good can come of it.”
The SSC’s report had stated that having regard to its observations/findings, the SSC considered “that in many respects the manner in which the entire process was conducted by the PSC was defective and unreliable and may expose the PSC to allegations of arbitrariness and lack of transparency.”
However, another SSC member, UNC MP Ganga Singh, said the SSC didn’t find anything illegal.
Hinds didn’t answer calls yesterday and the usual post-Cabinet media briefing wasn’t held.
Another SSC member, Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh, agreed members had signed off on the report and “....on Monday any questions will be answered.”
UNC MP Dr Bhoe Tewarie said, “I’m awaiting Government’s justification for any charge of heart they might have on the process which they had argued was flawed.”
UNC MP Christine Newallo-Hosein added, “Government indicated early on that the PSC’s process was flawed. It looks foolish to say it’s flawed every time we come to debate a notification and it’s someone you don’t want and when there’s someone you desire, you say it’s not flawed. The error was blatant with the first notification (Dulalchan) and the other after (Phillip). It’ll be interesting to hear what Government’s argument will be on Monday. If the argument is the process, let’s deal with the process.”
On Griffith, she added, “It’s within the right of any citizen or non-citizens to apply for the job once you think you have the ability to make the required change.”
UNC’s Rushton Paray said, “I don’t know him personally but I’ve experienced his National Security work over 2013-14 when I saw the most amount of police in my area. Whether he’s confirmed or not, it’ll be an exciting time. I look forward to whoever’s chosen dealing with the crime situation.”
UNC’s Rudy Indarsingh said, “Gary is a competent person having served in the Defence Force.”
SSC’s REPORT ON PSC PROCESS NOTED AMONG FINDINGS:
• The PSC not only directed but participated “intimately in the assessment process in a most overwhelming way” in scoring at crucial stages of assessment. The SSC found nothing in judgment and legal opinions on the issue which authorised the PSC to participate as “intimately” as it did.
• The PSC came up with two order of merit lists which differed from the list arrived at the end of the assessment and the SSC felt its prerogatives and choices exercised were “incautious and perhaps reckless.”
• Two PSC members had prior working relationships with two candidates and admitted to a risk of bias. A PSC member who took no part in assessments came in at the final stage and contributed to the decision by scoring on the basis of assessment.
• There was no executive recruitment expert among PSC members and candidates weren’t told they were being assessed for both jobs. “Unacceptable and perhaps disadvantageous for some, and some who scored less at assessment emerged higher on the merit list than those who did otherwise,” SSC chairman Hinds added.
• The SSC concluded that the direct involvement of PSC members in the assessment stage of the process wasn’t what was contemplated in the legal order on the process under the Constitution.
• The SSC recognised that there “wasn’t full consensus in relation to its conclusions, as a minority of members believe that there was no fundamental breach of the law beginning with an open tender and ending with a strategy that allowed for a unanimous method of selection and that the flaws in the process were not fundamental so as to render it unfair and arbitrary.”
• The SSC recommended that the Order made pursuant to Section 123 (2) of the Constitution should be subject to “urgent review with the view to the establishment of well-defined guidelines for the selection of a COP and DCO.”