The Police Service Commission (PSC) yesterday filed legal action against Police Commissioner Nigel Hoppie over his continued refusal to effect the promotions announced last month.
In the action which lists Hoppie, the President, Prime Minister, Attorney General and the Commission’s Secretary as respondents, the PSC is seeking a number of declarations—among them—for the court to nullify President Irfaan Ali’s suspension of the Chairman and members of the Commission.
In court documents seen by this newspaper, Commission Chair, assistant commissioner (ret’d) Paul Slowe alleged that the President was hostile and aggressive in “pressuring” him to promote “certain senior police officers” “his (the President’s) people” “that the Government wanted” to be promoted.
Through its battery of attorneys led by Selwyn Pieters, the PSC (the Applicant) said that Ali’s order subsequently suspending the Commission, contravenes the Constitution and cannot therefore be regarded as having any force or effect whatsoever.
About two weeks ago, Slowe wrote Hoppie directing that he honour the promotions list published by the constitutional body on June 28th or risk legal action. Hoppie has acknowledged receipt of Slowe’s ultimatum but is still to comply.
The promotion list was made public just one hour after Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire had dismissed a challenge which had delayed the promotions for more than six months.
Days before the Chief Justice (CJ) handed down her ruling, however, President Ali by letters dated 15th June, 2021 issued orders suspending the five-member Commission which included Slowe, retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Clinton Conway, Claire Jarvis, Michael Somersall and Vesta Adams.
Stemming from the CJ’s June 28th ruling, however, Slowe called on the Top Cop to effect the promotions.
In his letter, Slowe upbraided Hoppie for failing to prepare the promotion order so that the promoted ranks and other members of the Force could be informed of the promotions.
The Commission is also seeking a declaration that Prime Minister Mark Phillips’ recommendations to Ali that questions removing its members from their respective posts on grounds other than inability to discharge their functions or for misbehaviour were contrary to the Constitution as well.
The PSC then goes on to list a number of orders it is hoping the court would grant—including that the Commission’s Secretary be directed to prepare formal letters to the ranks named on the official list of promotions compiled and signed by the Commission on June 28th, 2021 informing those ranks of the Commission’s decision to promote them.
The Applicant also wants the secretary to be directed to prepare a Government Order giving effect to the promotions set out in the promotions list and to instruct the Principal Personnel Officer to publish the said order.
The PSC also wants the court to order Hoppie to prepare a special promotion order in accordance with the convention and the Commission’s role and responsibilities under the Constitution and the Police Act.
Additionally, the PSC wants the court to order the Top Cop to instruct the Quartermaster to issue the newly promoted ranks with their respective badges of rank.
The Commission is arguing that it is empowered under Article 212 (1) of the Constitution to make appointments to any office in the Police Force of or above the rank of Inspector, the power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power to remove such persons from office.
The Applicant argues, too, that in accordance with Section A02, Paragraph 5 of the Police Service Rules 2004; subject to provisions of Article 211 (1) of the Constitution, the power to make appointments to offices in the Force of or above the rank of Inspector, the power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power to remove such persons from office shall vest in the Commission.
It went on to state that the Secretary of the Commission is obligated by the express and implied terms of his employment and by the Constitution, to follow all lawful instructions of the Commission within its constitutional mandate.
According to court documents seen by this newspaper, Slowe deposed that about a month after the Ali Administration took office in August of last year, “various members and associates of the government” made it known to him and the Commission that the “government wanted certain senior police officers to be promoted” and “applied pressure” to him (Slowe) and the Commission to promote these officers specifically.
Slowe said that during a meeting with the President on September 16th last year, Ali informed him that he wanted Senior Superintendents Calvin Brutus and Fazil Karimbaksh promoted.
Slowe said he told Ali that in accordance with the Constitution, it is the Commission that is in charge of appointing officers at and above the rank of Inspector and that he (Slowe) did not have unilateral control over the Commission which is governed by well-established rules regarding promotions—including not promoting officers with pending disciplinary matters—which both Brutus and Karimbaksh had at the time.
The day after his meeting with the President, Slowe deposed that he was contacted by one Arafat Qualender—whom he described as being a friend of Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC—who requested that he (Slowe) meet with him (Qualender).
During the subsequent meeting, Slowe said Qualender informed him that both Nandlall and the Vice President hoped to meet with him, to which Slowe said he was willing but that he “would not engage in anything illegal, immoral or unethical.”
Slowe said that the proposed meetings which eventually did not materialize were evidently in regard to the promotion of ranks and that Qualender further voiced his hope that “someone loyal to the Government be appointed as Commissioner of Police.”
Slowe said that in late September, Assistant Commissioner Edgar Thomas, Head of the Presidential Guard, wrote the Commission recommending several ranks of the Presidential Guard for acting appointments.
The commission’s Chair said, however, that Thomas’ recommendations for the appointments were contrary to the protocols and standard operating procedure of the Police Force, and that he (Slowe) wrote Thomas, rebuking him “for the indiscrete and inappropriate violation of protocol.”
Slowe said that following his missive to Thomas, the President phoned him (Slowe), and upbraided him for being “too harsh” on Thomas, stating that it was he (Ali) who had instructed Thomas to write the Commission regarding the acting appointments and that he (Slowe) “should go easy on Thomas.”
Slowe said he then indicated to the President that as a senior police officer, Thomas ought to have known the correct protocol for recommending persons for acting appointments.
Slowe said in court documents that after the Commission had created its confidential promotions shortlist, he was asked to telephone President Ali who enquired why Brutus and Karimbaksh had not been shortlisted.
Slowe said he told the President that the rules prohibited the promotion of ranks with pending disciplinary matters; to which Ali responded in a “hostile” and “aggressive manner” stating “at the top of his voice that he was very upset that his people were not going to be promoted.”
Slowe said that the president has no authority to suspend the members of the Commission other than the Chairman on the advice of the Prime Minister and that members of the Commission can only be removed for inability to discharge their functions or for misbehaviour.
Citing its fears that the “unconstitutional suspension” of the members of the Commission will be given cover of law and will set a dangerous precedent, the PSC is hoping that the court will urgently grant the declarations and orders being sought.
If not granted, the Applicant said that the Commission will be rendered unable to fulfill its constitutional mandate to make appointments to any offices in the Force and that the names of the ranks it has put forward for promotion will be unreasonably delayed until after the term of the present Commission ends on August 9 of this year.
“Your action in not ensuring that the Special Promotion Order is prepared and published one week after receiving the promotion list from the Police Service Commission is interpreted by the Police (Service) Commission as you defying the legitimate action of the Police Service Commission in promoting ranks of the Guyana Police Force,” Slowe had written in his letter to Hoppie demanding that the promotions be effected.
Hoppie’s delay in complying with the directives of the PSC is likely due to a declaration from Nandlall that the promotions were “unlawful and illegal” and therefore would not be acknowledged by the government.
It has however been pointed out that Hoppie is answerable to the PSC on police promotions and not the Attorney General.
