Judgment has been reserved in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Cabinet’s new proposal for the selection and appointment of a police commissioner and his deputies.
High Court Judge Peter Rajkumar deferred his decision after hearing submissions in the case brought by retired police Insp Harridath Maharaj, who is claiming that the Cabinet infringed on the powers of the Police Service Commission (PSC) when it issued two legal notices last year, prescribing the procedure and criteria to be used by the PSC in selecting people for executive posts in the T&T Police Service (TTPS).
Maharaj filed the lawsuit earlier this year in the “public’s interest”, as he claimed he had witnessed first hand the debilitating effects political interference can have on the proper and efficient management of TTPS.
His legal team was led by former prime minister and Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who yesterday submitted that the provisions of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process) Order of 2015 reduced the PSC’s autonomy of the selection procedure, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Among the proposed procedures being complained about, Persad-Bissessar highlighted the requirement for the Minister of National Security to initiate the selection process and a mandate for the PSC to utilise State-owned procurement company, NIPDEC, to select a local recruitment agency, which would then be contracted to assist in the selection process.
She contended that the latter provision removed the requirement for constant consultations between the agency and the PSC and delegates its responsibility to gather information and disqualify candidates.
Maharaj’s contentions were rejected by both attorneys for the State and the PSC, who agreed that the procedure introduced by the latest order afforded the commission more power than the last order issued in 2009. As they both noted that the PSC’s independence is sacrosanct, they stated that Cabinet did not overstep its boundaries.
Head of the PSC’s legal team, Russel Martineau, SC, said the Constitution gave Cabinet the power to issue the order guiding the work of the PSC.
“This concerns the independence of the PSC, so we (PSC) are not taking sides. It could not be clearer that whatever the order is, you cannot fault it,” Martineau said.
Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes also defended the order’s provision for the use of NIPDEC to select the recruitment agency.
“The commission has a limited budget, there is nothing wrong with the PSC using the facilities of the State to achieve its objectives,” Mendes said. He also contended that the order did not remove the PSC’s right to reject companies selected by Nipdec, who it felt may be politically influenced and that the PSC still had full control over the terms and conditions given to the agency eventually chosen.
Both Mendes and Martineau suggested that Rajkumar chose to interpret the order in a way that least encroached on the PSC’s power, as any negative impact being suggested has never occurred since the controversial procedure is yet to be adopted.
Maharaj is also being represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Gerald Ramdeen, Kent Samlal, Jayanti Lutchmedial and Douglas Bayley. Rishi Dass appeared alongside Mendes.