Last Friday, Parliament vetoed the candidate nominated as Police Commissioner. The reason for doing so was not because he was a foreigner and not qualified for appointment. Instead, the suggestion was that because the candidate had been involved in the 2008 process for selection of a Commissioner of Police, he should be disqualified. At a news conference last Thursday, my colleague Israel Khan suggested that the CoP must be a citizen of T&T. This was so, he claimed, because a police trainee must be a citizen, and therefore, since one worked one's way up the ladder of promotion, it followed that the CoP must be a citizen. That sounds fine until one looked at all the law in this regard, as I did as a member of the Regulations Committee in the Senate in 2008. It is true that the 2007 Police Service Regulations specify that a "candidate for appointment as a trainee" shall be a citizen of T&T.
He must also undergo a polygraph, drugs testing and "be not less than 18 years and not more than 35 years of age..." Clearly, this criterion applies only to trainees who are defined as "a person undergoing initial training with a view to becoming a police officer." Thus, any person desirous of being a candidate to train as a police officer must be a citizen. In contrast, the same regulations which deal with appointment of First Division officers state simply that he may be selected from among officers in the Second Division or from outside the service. The post of Commissioner falls within the First Division. Furthermore, the Constitution provides that the Police Service Commission shall nominate persons for appointment as Commissioner or Deputy in accordance with the criteria prescribed by Order of the President.
The supreme law of the land, therefore, authorises the President to specify the criteria for appointment as Commissioner. The criteria do not say that the Commissioner must be a citizen. Perhaps, they should. The law governing selection of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy is contained in orders made under the hand of the President and published in Legal Notices 101 and 102 of 2009. LN 101 relates to the criteria which are basically the same as they were in 2008, when the last nominations were made. These include a degree and at least 15 years' experience of increasing responsibility in law enforcement. There are other subjective criteria, such as leadership skills "which enables him to motivate, inspire and engender trust." Also included are management skills, communication skills, commitment and integrity.
The selection process is outlined in LN 102. The services of a firm experienced in assessing top police managers is contracted by the Director of Personnel Administration. The firm then advertises the post and receives applications. The "most suitable candidates" are then short-listed and subjected to the "best practice security vetting." As to the assessment panel, all that is required is that at least one of the persons on the panel must be of equivalent or higher rank than the candidate. The Police Service Commission becomes involved only when it is presented with the short list. They were presented with such a list by Penn State, which was the firm selected. The PSC deals only with the five top candidates on the short list. They review the assessment and conduct their own interviews. They gather information, and at this stage that would include security checks and the like. They then prepare their own order of merit list from this five. This is then sent to the President.
Affirmative resolution
The Constitution determines what happens after the PSC makes a selection for the post of CoP. Once the names are submitted to the President, he is required to issue a notification specifying the person nominated for the positions of either Commissioner or Deputy.
This notification is subject to an affirmative resolution of the House of Representatives as stated in the Constitution. There is no Senate involvement here. The PSC can appoint the Commissioner only after the House of Representatives approves the notification. The bottom line is that the government of the day determines whether or not a particular candidate will get the job as Commissioner of Police. Previously, it was the Prime Minister who had the veto. The law has been amended to give this power to the House. Last Friday, the House vetoed the appointment of the candidate recommended as Commissioner, although they approved those nominated as deputies.
The action vetoing the Commissioner is, in effect, the same as what transpired when the then PNM government vetoed the selection of Stephen Williams as Commissioner–for no good reason. In the current scenario, we are left with the indication that because the candidate was involved in the selection process in 2008, he should not now be selected: he is disqualified. Frankly, I would have some concerns myself. I also find it strange that a person who is in 2010 a Deputy Commissioner in Antigua, with a police strength of about 300, could be found to be qualified in 2008 to sit on an assessment panel selecting a CoP for T&T with a strength of over 6,000 police officers. What is even more odd is that then Senior Supt Stephen Williams (now Asst Commissioner) was the No 1 choice of the PSC as Commissioner. This was after he was short-listed by Penn State. This time around, he did not make the short list. No local made the short list. To my mind, the selection process in which Penn State engaged must be investigated. Something is not right.