For the first time since In­de­pen­dence, this coun­try will tem­porar­i­ly be with­out a Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice. De­liv­er­ing a 58-page judge­ment, a short while ago, High Court Judge Na­dia Kan­ga­loo up­held an in­ter­pre­ta­tion law­suit from so­cial ac­tivist Ravi Bal­go­b­in Ma­haraj, in which he (Ma­haraj) claimed that the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion need­ed the ap­proval of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives to make act­ing and sub­stan­tive ap­point­ments for the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice and Deputy Com­mis­sion­ers of Po­lice (DCPs). 

Kan­ga­loo’s de­ci­sion in the case ef­fec­tive­ly in­val­i­dat­ed the act­ing ap­point­ment giv­en to for­mer po­lice com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith af­ter his three-year stint in the post end­ed in mid-Au­gust. It al­so in­val­i­dat­ed the act­ing ap­point­ment giv­en to DCP Mc­Don­ald Ja­cob af­ter Grif­fith went on leave and was tem­porar­i­ly sus­pend­ed by the Com­mis­sion due to its probe in­to the is­su­ing of firearm user’s li­cens­es (FULs). 

Even if Ma­haraj’s law­suit was dis­missed, Ja­cob would not have been able to con­tin­ue the post while Grif­fith re­mained on leave pend­ing the com­ple­tion of the probe, as per his (Grif­fith) set­tle­ment with the Com­mis­sion over the sus­pen­sion, as Ja­cob’s act­ing ap­point­ment was due to end at mid­night tonight. 

The ap­point­ment of a new act­ing com­mis­sion­er un­der the process af­firmed by Jus­tice Kan­ga­loo can on­ly be­gin af­ter the Com­mis­sion is re­con­sti­tut­ed. The com­mis­sion is cur­rent­ly mem­ber­less as even though re­tired Jus­tice of Ap­peal Ju­dith Jones and con­sul­tant Max­ine At­tong were nom­i­nat­ed, ear­li­er this week, they still re­quire Par­lia­men­tary ap­proval to be ap­point­ed. 

While un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion, the Com­mis­sion con­sists of a Chair­man and four mem­bers, de­ci­sions can be tak­en with a quo­rum of three. The Com­mis­sion is cur­rent­ly barred from com­plet­ing the process of se­lect­ing a list of can­di­dates for the sub­stan­tive post, to be ap­proved by Par­lia­ment, based on an in­junc­tion ob­tained by act­ing Se­nior Supt Anand Rame­sar. He is chal­leng­ing the de­ci­sion of the for­mer Com­mis­sion mem­bers to not se­lect him to move on to the in­ter­view stage of their re­cruit­ment process. That in­junc­tion re­mains in place un­til Rame­sar’s law­suit comes up for hear­ing be­fore Jus­tice Joan Charles in two weeks’ time. 

Ma­haraj was rep­re­sent­ed by Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, Renu­ka Ramb­ha­jan, Jayan­ti Lutch­me­di­al, Jared Ja­groo, Natasha Bis­ram, and Vishaal Siewsaran. The AG’s Of­fice was rep­re­sent­ed by Dou­glas Mendes, SC, Rishi Dass, and Te­nille Ramkissoon. Se­nior Coun­sel Rus­sell Mar­tineau led the Com­mis­sion’s le­gal team, while Lar­ry Lal­la rep­re­sent­ed Grif­fith. 

Re­porter: Derek Achong