Dear Editor
The Tribunal which was established by the current but not lawfully and fully constituted Police Service Commission to conduct an inquiry into breaches of discipline allegedly committed by former Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus was unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect. Let me be pellucid. I hold no brief for Calvin Brutus. There are too many wicked allegations made against him. He is not my friend. He has a battery of attorneys-at-law to defend him.
I believe in upholding the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana which is the supreme law of the land and the rule of law. Over the years, I have been speaking out on these issues and will continue to do so. Back to the not lawfully and fully constituted Police Service Commission and the illegally appointed Tribunal, sorry “Tribal Union.” The Police Service Commission shall consist of five members, 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 other such bodies it deems fit. The other member is the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. His or her appointment is mandatory.
The present Police Service Commission has four members when the Constitution mandates that it shall consists of five members. Mark Conway, the fifth member of the Commission, died several months ago. He has not been replaced. A recent ruling by the Hon. Chief Justice when the Police Service Commission had four members is that it was not lawfully and fully constituted and in that state it cannot carry out any function of the Commission until the appointment of the fifth member. When the Commission is fully constituted the Chairman and two other members will form a quorum. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional for the present Commission to have appointed a Tribunal to inquire into breaches of discipline allegedly committed by Calvin Brutus.
Article 212(1) of the Constitution gives the Police Service Commission the absolute power to make appointments to any offices 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 person from offices. It must be noted that the appointment of a Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is done by the President after meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and Chairperson of the Police Service Commission who would have consulted with other members of the Commission.
In accordance with Article 212 (2) of the Constitution, the Commission has the authority to delegate its power to exercise disciplinary control to one or more of its members, the Commissioner of Police and other members of the Force. It does not give the Commission the authority to delegate such function to civilians. Here is the Article, “The Police Service Commission may, by directions in writing and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, delegate any of its powers under the preceding paragraph to anyone or more of its members of the Commission to the Commissioner of Police or, in the case of the power to exercise disciplinary control, to any other member of the Police Force.”
So, even if the present Commission was lawfully and fully constituted it would have been a fatal breach of the Constitution to appoint a Tribunal that includes civilians Shoshasna Lall, Seelall Persaud, Keoma Griffith and others to inquire into any disciplinary offence under the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17;01. They are not members of the Commission, the Commissioner of Police or any member of the Guyana Police Force. Therefore, they cannot lawfully exercise disciplinary control in accordance with Article 212(2) of the Constitution alluded to above.
Brutus was charged under Section 4 (z) of the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17;01. In relation to the investigation of breaches of discipline, here is what Section 5 (1) of the Act states, “Every alleged commission of an offence under this Act shall be investigated as soon as practicable by a member of the Force not below the rank of sergeant and of a higher rank than the member of the Force who is alleged to have committed the offence.” It is pellucid that the investigation into the alleged breaches committed by Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus should have been done by either Deputy Commissioners of Police McBean, Watts, Blanhum, Budhram or Karimbaksh. Neither of them was involved into the investigation in question. This is a fatal breach of the Police (Discipline (Act Chapter 17:01).
The Act outlines the procedure to be followed when a Disciplinary Inquiry is to be conducted. In its unlawful deliberations, the Tribunal itself conducted breaches of the disciplinary procedure too numerous for me to mention. Time and space does not permit me to identify and highlight details of the breaches. I will do so in another article. It is my opinion that the Tribunal was conceptualised, designed, developed and implemented to fast track the early dismissal of Calvin Brutus without regards for the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the Police (Discipline) Act and the rule of law. I rest my case. May God help the Guyana Police Force.
Sincerely,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police (Ret’d)
