Dear Editor,
I write as a concerned citizen to express my serious reservations about the recent appointment of Clifton Hicken as Commissioner of Police. While the role of Commissioner is undeniably crucial for the security and stability of our country, the manner in which this appointment was made raises several constitutional concerns that merit public attention and clarification.
On December 19, 2024, President Dr. Irfaan Ali confirmed Mr. Hicken as the substantive Commissioner of Police, asserting that all constitutional procedures were followed. However, a closer examination of the Constitution of Guyana and related laws raises significant questions about whether these procedures were properly adhered to, particularly in regard to the age restrictions for the role and the process of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
1. Consultation with the Opposition Leader
According to Article 211(1) of the Constitution of Guyana, the President is required to consult with the Leader of the Opposition before making an appointment to the office of Commissioner of Police. However, it is well known that Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton explicitly disagreed with Mr. Hicken’s appointment. While the Constitution does not require agreement, it clearly demands meaningful consultation, which should involve genuine dialogue on the appointment’s merits. The lack of agreement raises questions about whether the consultation process was adequately meaningful or merely procedural.
2. Age Limit and the Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act
Section 2(b) of the Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act, Cap. 27:12 allows the President to extend the tenure of a substantive Commissioner of Police, beyond the age of 55, but only if the extension is agreed upon before the Commissioner reaches 55. Mr. Hicken, whose 55th birthday was on July 22, 2023, was acting as Commissioner after this date, not substantively appointed before he turned 55. Therefore, the extension provisions in the law that apply to substantive Commissioners do not appear to be applicable to him in this instance. The decision to appoint him substantively beyond the retirement age of 55 raises the question of whether this was done in accordance with constitutional requirements.
3. Substantive Appointment after Acting Role
Another concern is the transition from an acting role to a substantive appointment. Acting roles are temporary by nature and do not automatically confer the privileges of a substantive appointment. There is no clear constitutional provision that directly addresses how someone who has served in an acting role beyond 55 years can be substantively appointed. This creates uncertainty about whether the President’s decision to appoint Mr. Hicken to the substantive position was legally valid.
4. Implications for the Rule of Law
These concerns are not just legal technicalities; they have broader implications for the integrity of our constitutional system. The rule of law must be upheld, and the Constitution must remain the guiding framework for all state appointments, particularly for such a crucial role as Commissioner of Police. Any potential violations or ambiguity in the process could undermine public trust in our institutions.
I urge the relevant authorities to provide clarification on these issues, especially regarding whether the age limit provisions were properly adhered to and whether the consultation with the Opposition Leader met the constitutional standards of meaningful engagement. These concerns are not trivial and warrant the attention of Parliament to ensure that the Constitutional integrity of the appointment process is preserved.
As citizens, we rely on the accountability and transparency of our leaders to ensure that all actions taken are in line with our laws. I hope that the government and Parliament will provide clarity on this matter and reinforce the importance of upholding the Constitution of Guyana.
Sincerely,
Nakisha Allen
