The recent ruling of the High Court striking down the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process) Order 2015 may be reasonable grounds for reviewing the facts and circumstances which led to the abolition of the former Police Service Commission in 2006 and its replacement by the current Commission.
Astoundingly, 53 years after the independence of T&T the police service would appear to be mired in the abyss of hopelessness and despair with a senior police officer acting as Commissioner of Police (CoP) for five years and more without any hope of the making of a permanent appointment soon as a consequence of the convoluted procedure for so doing.
This situation would appear to have been precipitated more by emotionalism and political idiosyncrasy rather than by reason or logic or the comprehension of the role and function of the police in a democracy which is confined to crime detection, law enforcement and the keeping of the peace and who in the exercise of those functions, are not only independent of the executive but the servant of no one but the law.
When the British was granting to T&T an advanced system of government in 1953 the then Secretary of State made special reference to the police and stated: “I need not elaborate the very special arrangement for securing the independence of the police who exist not to carry out the instructions of the Government of the day but to preserve the peace and enforce the law. Any departure from this fundamental principle must involve the risk of a police state.” As a consequence, the 1950 Constitution Order in Council provided for an independent Police Service Commission (PSC) and so did successive Constitutions culminating in the Republican Constitution of 1976.
The 1976 Constitution provided for members of the Commission to be appointed by the President and not by Cabinet or Parliament save that in the case of the CoP and Deputy CoP, the appointments were to be made by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister. However, no such appointment was to be made if the PM had signified his objection. He was, however, required to give reasons for his objection.
The role and function of the Commission was to appoint and promote people to an office in the police service and to transfer and exercise disciplinary control over them free from political patronage, influence, nepotism or favouritism while the general direction and control of the police on the other hand was vested in the minister to whom was assigned the Ministry of National Security and the Permanent Secretary of that ministry.
However, over the years there appeared to have been grave dissatisfaction over the management of the police service and as a consequence a number of committees were appointed from time to time to inquire into its operation and management, but respective governments unrelentingly attributed management responsibility to the Commission notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 85, 122, 123 and 129 of the Constitution.
In 1993 the then PM requested the Commission to retire the CoP (Jules Bernard) in the public interest but the Commission did not do so since the grounds provided by the Permanent Secretary for so doing lacked material particulars sufficient to justify the request. That decision then precipitated the introduction of a Bill in Parliament to amend the Constitution to abolish the Commission and have it replaced by a Police Management Authority but that Bill failed for want of the support of the Opposition.
In 2006, however, the Government introduced yet another Bill in Parliament which was passed by the House of Representatives with the support of the Opposition and is now Act No. 6 of 2006. The amended Constitution provides for members of the Commission to be appointed by the President subject to an affirmative resolution of the House of Representatives thereby replacing an independent Commission by one subject to political control.
One of the major problems militating against the efficiency of the Police Service prior to 1995 was promotion in the Second Division which was determined by interviews conducted by a Promotion Advisory Board (PAB). However in 1964 the Darby Commission which was appointed to inquire into the Organization, Administration and Discipline of the Police Service had identified major areas of dissatisfaction among police officers such as: (a) the PAB interviewed 50 officers in one day; (b) the interviewing time allotted to an officer was five minutes; (c) police officers in the Second Division had no confidence in the PAB because of favouritism in the interviewing process.
In 1995 the then Commission abolished the PAB since it became notorious for promoting favouritism, inefficiency and discrimination and its corrupt modus operandi. Moreover, empirical evidence had established that marks in interviews and examinations were not predictive of an officer’s on the job performance. Further, although the Commission’s regulations required the CoP to provide police officers with periodical feedbacks on the areas of any weaknesses and/or shortcomings which they might have evinced in the performance of their duties, the regulations were observed more in the breach than in their observance.
As a consequence the Commission abolished the secrecy and confidentiality of staff reporting and required such reports to be shown to all officers before submitting them to the Commission. However, the government in 2006 reinstated the PAB thereby resurrecting the spectre of nepotism, favouritism and political influence in the promotion process.
Police officers, like officers of the public service and the judiciary, have a legitimate expectation for upward mobility and to be treated fairly and justly in accordance with the rule of law. Accordingly, when those expectations fail the consequences are generally disastrous.
Dr Kenneth R Lalla SC