N
Neo
Guest
There is a division on the Police Service Commission’s process to select a Commissioner of Police.
Government members of a Parliamentary committee examining the PSC’s process to select a CoP and deputy CoP say the process was defective and they want a review of that order.
But Opposition members on the committee say the PSC acted in good faith and restarting the selection process would be a “colossal waste of money.”
Members of the Special Select Committee mandated earlier this year to examine the issue were divided yesterday on the PSC’s process, after chairman Fitzgerald Hinds laid the team’s report in Parliament. Government has three other MPs on the team.
Opposition members on the team, MPs Ganga Singh and Roodal Moonilal, who said they hadn’t seen the finished report, submitted a minority report.
The team was mandated by Parliament in February to examine the PSC’s selection process after DCPs Deodat Dulalchan and Harold Phillips were named for the top spots of CoP and DCP and nominees’ names were seen by the President’s office to Parliament for examination.
However, both Government and Opposition expressed concerns about PSC’s selection process and the committee was instructed to review it.
The report from the four Government majority members of the committee states they believed the direct involvement of PSC members in the assessment stage of the process wasn’t what was contemplated in the order (on the issue) made under the Constitution.
“Additionally, having regard to observations and findings, the committee considers 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.”
They, however, admitted recognising that there wasn’t full consensus on their conclusions, “... as a minority of members believe 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 weren’t fundamental so as to that rendered it unfair and arbitrary.”
The majority of members 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 DCoP.”
After Hinds submitted the report to Parliament, UNC’s Singh said the Opposition members on the committee hadn’t seen it.
Opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar said she’d never heard of this happening.
Although Singh persisted, House Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George said MPs would have an opportunity to speak on the report when it is debated.
The Opposition’s minority report states there is “presumption of regularity in the conduct of public bodies unless mala fides - bad faith - can be proven.”
“Therefore, in the absence of such findings the PSC acted in good faith. At all times the PSC sought and obtained legal advice on their role, involvement and boundaries,” the Opposition report said.
“It was commendable they depended on legal advice throughout this process. We agreed with the Director of Personnel Administration that the PSC did the best they could in the new circumstances - indeed the PSC charted new ground. If there were shortcomings in the use of human resource management or recruitment strategies adopted, these were not fatal and cannot nullify the outcome.”
The Opposition report added, “Given the resources, time, frustrations and clear impairment of having our law enforcement sector properly established , it would be a colossal waste of money and time to embark on this process again. Given this, we’re of the view that the notifications from the President (on the selection issue) should be affirmed by the House of Representatives.”
The Opposition also felt the PSC didn’t breach the legal notice on the selection issues or the Constitution and had acted within a High Court judgement concerning the selection process also.
Singh and Moonilal also stated they disagreed with several findings of the majority Government team. But they added that they also agreed with some of the observations.
Their report stated they’d requested more time to seek clarification on several issues in doubt in the majority report, but this wasn’t successful.