A
alexk
Guest
A political analyst believes that Government’s credibility is on the line and will be hard pressed to accept the nomination of Harold Phillip as Commissioner of Police, arising out of a system which it had described as flawed, this as Parliament meets on Monday to discuss a notification from President Paula-Mae Weekes on the nomination of Harold Phillips as Commissioner of Police.
The notification from the President followed a recommendation by the President from the Police Service Commission whose Chairman Bliss Seepersad in a letter to the President noted that although a special select Committee of Parliament was “highly critical of aspects of the selection process, Senior Counsel had advised the Commission that the existing Merit List is still valid,” and that according to Legal Notice 218 of December 2015 that the Commission should submit “the next highest ranking candidate in the Order of Merit List for the Office of Commissioner.”
Political analyst Dr Winford James admitted to being puzzled, “Why is that? How did we move from the highest to the next highest how did we get there? I don’t understand.”
James recalled that Government had expressed concern with the process used by the PSC in the nomination of Deodat Dulalchan for the post of Commission of Police, “now the chairman saying they don’t have the money to go over the process, so all of a sudden we hearing legal advice on the second highest. Why didn’t the legal advice say the first (original candidate), I don’t understand.”
Efforts to reach Bless proved futile.
But James said for the PSC to move to the next candidate it should be that they were “satisfied with the removal or dismissal of the first, how did she get to the next hired?”
He said the Government-led committee, chaired by Fitzgerald Hinds, had expressed concern with the many “anomalies” in the process.
James said even the Prime Minister “laid bare the inefficiencies of that process and now we are hearing that the PSC, rather than going through the process again in a proper way, they decided they could not do that because they don’t have enough money and they preferred to follow senior counsel advice who is speaking of the next highest.”
In arriving at the decision Seepersad told the President there was “no documentary evidence of the process,” nor, she said, was there any “scoring sheet used to produce the (original) final list.” As a result she said the PSC was “obliged to accept the vernal explanations provided by the three Commissioners who were part of the process.”
Seepersad and another commissioner Susan Craig-James, were not part of the PSC which recommended Dulalchan.
James said it was clear that the “public and probably the Government does not have the information which it should, so there are anomalies there, there are secrets, what does one do in a situation like that?”
He said he did not feel “confident that the process they have ultimately used to go to the next highest candidate is a process that inspires confidence and fair play.”
At a conversation with the Prime Minister in Barataria on June 22, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley had expressed the hope that the “PSC, which is reviewing the last effort, will come with a recommendation which the Parliament will address and we will have a commissioner.”
But James cautioned that if the Government accepts the recommendation of Phillip, their credibility will be at stake.
James said while Government has the required majority to appoint Phillip on the basis of the recommendation, he did not believe that they would, “they have to have credibility... There is a credibility issue there.”
At the Barataria meeting Rowley expressed concern that the current system being used “costs millions of dollars and reputations,” which he said was unlike the previous system when the Prime Minister had a veto, “which was free.”
Rowley said what is currently in place “is far worse. Now it is subject to naked politics.”
Retired head of both the Police and Public Service Commissions’ Kenneth Lalla agreed that the previous system, where the Prime Minster acting as head of the Government had the veto power, was far more efficient.
That system was abolished when Lalla, who was head of the PSC, refused a request from the then prime minister Patrick Manning to remove the then commissioner Jules Bernard.
Lalla said he found no justification for the termination. That subsequently led to the Prime Minister taking three bills to Parliament to amend the Constitution. It got the support of the Opposition and the system was changed to what currently exists.
Lalla said the current “system is very convoluted, it is a chaotic system.”
The “irony,” he said is that “we seem not to be able to appoint a Commissioner at tremendous cost to taxpayers.”
He recalled that the last Commissioner appointed under the system now in use, Dwayne Gibbs and his deputy Jack Ewatski, “were interviewed by Penn University in the United States at a cost of $5 million.” The current hunt for a Commissioner cost $3 million which was paid to KPMG to interview and score the candidates.
The irony is neither Dulalchan nor Phillip applied for the position of Commissioner. Both men, who are acting Deputy Commissioners, applied for the position of Deputy Commissioner.
At least two of the candidates who applied for the position of Commissioner declined official comment. A legal source said if the Parliament approves Phillip they could well be opening the door for a legal battle from those who legitimately applied for the position.