When a seasoned and combative politician such as Minister Clement Rohee, who is always on the lookout for public kudos, took off at the speed he did in denying any involvement of himself and his ministry in the promotion of two of their employees, it is a sure sign that he suspects that all may not be well with the promotions and that he sees no advantage in being associated with the process.
But I believe that in bolting from this issue with such haste, Mr. Rohee has left in his wake searching questions about his understanding of his role as a minister and, as a result, of the management of his responsibilities.
In 2009, two police officers tortured a teenager by burning his testicles at the Leonora Police Station. The matter went to civil court, where the policemen were found liable and the government was ordered to pay damages. Earlier this month, these same two police officers were promoted by the Police Service Commission and the Commissioner of Police.
“I have nothing to do with the Police Service Commission. That is a constitutional body, they make decisions in their own right, on their own judgment, based on a number of records and so forth. Clement Rohee has nothing to with the Police Service Commission” (“Nothing to do with me,’ Rohee says in response to Leonora ‘torture’ cops promotion” SN: 20/01/2015).
According to Article 212 of our constitution, the power to make appointments and discipline any officers in the police force above the rank of inspector is vested in the Police Service Commission and the power to make appointments and discipline those below the rank of inspector is vested in the Commissioner of Police.
Thus, on the face of it, Mr. Rohee appears to be correct, but closer investigation suggests that coming from someone who has been in a senior public management position for so long, his position is not only incorrect but portends a level of unreality that must inevitably lead to a conscious perversion of public management.
Service commissions are established essentially to ensure that there is no political discrimination and that justice and fair play exist in the appointment, placement, promotion and discipline of public employees. To make this and a few other points, let us consider a relatively more forward-looking approach to these kinds of matters.
The Canadian Public Service Employment Act 2005 established the Public Service Commission of Canada with the exclusive authority to make appointments to or within the public service. The core values of merit and non-partisanship are the cornerstones of appointments and the values of fairness, transparency, access and representativeness are expected to guide managerial decision-making in the appointment process (“Public Service Commission Appointment Policy” Office of the Ethics Commissioner. Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. Ottawa, 2003).
Furthermore, contrary to Minister Rohee’s belief, institutional independence does not mean that the Police Service Commission or any service commission is expected to operate in isolation and without reference to stakeholder policies. Existing law, custom and practice and national policy must inform the decisions of such bodies.
As some writers have recently called to our attention, Guyana is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture and this should have been taken into consideration in considering the promotions of the two policemen.
The work of the Canadian Commission is guided by, among others, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Employment Equity Act, the Official Languages Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service (ibid).
Guyana’s laws provide Mr. Rohee with sufficient room to imbue the Police Service Commission with his ministry’s vision and policies. Quite apart from the normal dictates of public management, which demand that in cases such as these employer policy be taken into account, Article 212 (6) of the Constitution also states:
“Parliament may make provision with respect to offences against Police Force discipline and the punishment that may be imposed for any such offence, and any power to exercise disciplinary control (including any power to remove a person from office) or to determine an appeal from a decision to exercise such a power that is exercisable by any person or authority under the provision of this article shall be exercised in accordance with any such provision.”
The Canadian Commission decentralises most of its functions to the deputy heads of the relevant organisations and they are expected to customise and undertake human resource management in accordance with employer policy. “In the case of area of selection and corrective action and revocation, the Commission requires that deputy heads … establish an organizational policy. Deputy heads are strongly encouraged to include union representatives and unrepresented employees in the development of their organizational policy” (op cit).
Mr. Rohee had the authority to put in place policies to prevent the Police Service Commission from acting in the way it did. The Commissioner of Police falls directly under the policy purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and his recommendations and actions should be informed by the policies established by Mr. Rohee.
If the Ministry of Home Affairs did take policy action in relation to these kinds of events, Minister Rohee should have condemned the appointments. If it did not the Minister should simply admit to this and urgently put one in place.
Whatever the situation, Mr. Clement Rohee cannot weasel out of his responsibility by false disclaimers. Indeed, his denial of responsibility raises a whole host of difficulties that will not detain us.
But I wish to observe that the PPP/C’s normal modus operandi would prevent the most ardent supporter from believing that it would allow the service commissions the kind of policy latitude Mr. Rohee’s position suggests. Why then did this normally combative minister fly from this issue like a bat out of hell?
One possible explanation is that the general secretary wants to have his cake and eat it. He and his party have been nurturing compliant police support and now, as national elections beckon, want it on the ground, motivated and primed.
On the other hand, he does not think it politically advantageous at this election period for the PPP to be viewed as conniving in torture – particularly of a child and one who falls within the ambit of being a traditional PPP supporter.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
