Retired Assistant Commissioners of Police, Paul Slowe and Clinton Conway have been asked by Prime Minister Mark Phillips to show cause why the charges of fraud leveled against them should not result in their removal from the Police Service Commission (PSC).
“It has been brought to my attention that you have been charged with the offence of conspiracy to defraud…and placed before the Georgetown magistrates court (where) the matter remains pending…I hereby direct that you show cause in writing why I ought not to advise…that you be removed from the office of a member of the [PSC] as a result thereof,” the letter to Conway reads.
Speaking with Stabroek News yesterday, Conway acknowledged receipt of the letter seen by this newspaper and said that a similar letter was sent to Slowe. Attempts to reach Slowe were unsuccessful up to press time.
“It came by email to us,” Conway noted explaining that he would comment on the contents today.
They have been directed to respond by May 31 either via email or through hand delivered hard copy to the Prime Minister’s Office or official residence.
In the letter, Phillips said he is exercising powers granted under Article 225 of the Guyana Constitution which directs that a person shall not be removed from a constitutional office except for inability to discharge the function or for misbehaviour.
The article further provides that a constitutional office holder can be removed by the President if an appointed tribunal recommends their removal.
Such a tribunal is appointed following the advice of a “prescribed authority” in this case the Prime Minister and is to be constituted in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission. There is currently no functioning Judicial Service Commission.
Notably the article grants the president the right to suspend the office holder while the tribunal conducts investigations.
These provisions were last activated in 2015 by President David Granger after Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) Carvil Duncan was brought before the courts on fraud charges. The charges stemmed from a discovery by auditors that Duncan paid himself approximately $1M and allegedly conspired with Deputy Chief Executive Officer (DCEO) of the Guyana Power and Light, Aeshwar Deonarine, for an unapproved transfer of approximately $27M into the latter’s personal account.
At the time Granger and Minister of State Joseph Harmon contented that it was undesirable for someone who is facing criminal charges to hold a constitutional post while then Opposition Mem-ber of Parliament Anil Nandlall contended that a charge was not a conviction.
The current Attorney General had repeatedly argued that Article 144 of the Constitution affords to every defendant the presumption of innocence in respect of any criminal charge instituted against him until he is proven guilty.
That presumption, he said, precludes any adverse proceedings to be “taken against any person simply on the basis that a criminal charge has been instituted against them. Therefore the tribunal ought not to impact upon a course which can lead to the imposition of a sanction that is Duncan’s removal from office on the mere existence of the institution of a criminal charge.”
Infraction
He said that to do this would amount to an infraction of the constitutional presumption of innocence.
“The presumption of innocence means that Duncan has done nothing wrong until otherwise proven before a court of law,” he said, while adding that the proceedings in the lower court are still pending and, “therefore, Duncan is as innocent as the magistrate is, so why embark upon a course to remove him? Such a course flies in the face of the presumption of innocence.”
Several months later when the charges of larceny against Duncan were dismissed, Nandall in a letter published by Stabroek News declared that court’s decision vindicated his contention that the President “acted prematurely, precipitously, capriciously, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally” when they activated a process to remove Duncan from constitutional office before the hearing and determination of the criminal charges, although he has done no legal wrong that would be considered “misbehaviour” to warrant his removal from office.
Conway and Slowe have been members of the PSC since 2018 following their nominations by Parliament’s Committee of Appointments.
According to the report presented to the House by the Chair George Norton the two men were among four persons who were unanimously approved by the Members of the Committee during the April 11, 2018 meeting.
The report explained that the nomination process was conducted in accordance with Article 210 (1) (C) of the Constitution which states that the commission shall be comprised of “four members appointed by the President upon nomination by the National Assembly after it has consulted such bodies as appear to it to represent the majority of the members of the Police Force and any such body it deems fit.”
The “bodies” consulted were the Police Association, the Association of Former Members of the Guyana Police Force, the National Community Policing Executive and the Guyana Association of Professional Social Workers (GAPSW). GAPSW was consulted after it ascertained that the National Commission on Law and Order, which had been previously consulted, was no longer functioning.
Each entity was invited to nominate suitable persons but only the Police Association and the Association of Former Members of the Guyana Police Force responded.
Several months later then Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo objected to the appointment of Slowe as Chair of the Commission claiming he was political.
“This person was doing political work for the APNU in the past elections, at the senior level. Through a constitutional body recently, he displayed a lack of fairness and now he is being put to head the Police Service Commission. I believe it is worrying because policemen, with that individual heading, will not be treated fairly,” he said.
