Sascha Wil­son

For­mer head of the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PSC), Pro­fes­sor Ramesh De­osaran, be­lieves the court should ex­pe­dite the in­junc­tion pro­ceed­ings which has halt­ed the re­cruit­ment of a po­lice com­mis­sion­er giv­en the im­por­tance of the mat­ter.

In a tele­phone in­ter­view with Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day, De­osaran said while it is un­for­tu­nate the in­junc­tion has halt­ed the se­lec­tion process, the court ac­tion is al­so wel­comed as it will bring some clar­i­ty to some grey ar­eas, es­pe­cial­ly since the coun­try has had some un­pleas­ant ex­pe­ri­ences hav­ing an act­ing com­mis­sion­er for a long time.

Last month, Snr Supt Anand Rame­sar ini­ti­at­ed le­gal pro­ceed­ings against PSC af­ter he ap­plied for the top cop po­si­tion but did not ad­vance to the in­ter­view stage of the re­cruit­ment process.

Last week, an in­junc­tion was grant­ed block­ing the PSC from con­tin­u­ing the process un­til the in­junc­tion is heard.

Act­ing Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith, whose tenure as po­lice com­mis­sion­er ex­pired on Au­gust 17, is cur­rent­ly on leave. Grif­fith, who al­so reap­plied for the CoP po­si­tion, was giv­en an act­ing ap­point­ment pend­ing the com­ple­tion of the re­cruit­ment process. While he is on leave, Deputy Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er (DCP) Mc Don­ald Ja­cob is act­ing as Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er.

Asked about Grif­fith’s po­si­tion when he re­turns from va­ca­tion, De­osaran said, “As I un­der­stand it and ac­cord­ing to the le­gal no­tices passed in Par­lia­ment, it is up to the Com­mis­sion to de­cide on Mr Grif­fith’s fate now. So I un­der­stand he is on leave, the na­ture of the leave is not quite clear. Whether it is va­ca­tion leave or whether it is just sent on leave by the Com­mis­sion, that has to be clar­i­fied re­al­ly to know whether he can be re­called in­to the act­ing po­si­tion and then Mc Don­ald Ja­cob, the deputy step back.”

While that might add more con­fu­sion to an al­ready con­fus­ing sit­u­a­tion, he said, “There needs some clar­i­ty, so that’s why the mat­ter be­ing tak­en to court is un­for­tu­nate, in some ways as it might be, it is wel­comed in terms of the court try­ing to clar­i­fy the sit­u­a­tion now and the Com­mis­sion it­self has to be care­ful now as to what reg­u­la­tion or law it is re­ly­ing on to make its de­ci­sion, whether it is act­ing or per­ma­nent and the man­ner in which it goes for­ward giv­en the re­sources now it’s dis­pos­al.”

How­ev­er, De­osaran said the court should ex­pe­dite the mat­ter.

“This is a mat­ter of some emer­gency for the pub­lic in­ter­est, for pub­lic safe­ty and deal­ing with crime, so whilst the court needs time to re­flect, the length of time to re­flect should not be in­or­di­nate giv­en the pub­lic in­ter­est in­volved.”

While the mat­ter is ex­pect­ed to be heard next month, he said, “I think this is a mat­ter of some ur­gency and while next month in a sense may not be far away, giv­en the press­ing cir­cum­stances, I think there is need for some ur­gency ap­plied to the mat­ter and I think the longer this takes is the more con­fused the pub­lic will be.”

The mat­ter is ex­pect­ed to be heard be­fore High Court Judge Joan Charles on Oc­to­ber 24, when she will al­so de­cide whether to dis­charge the in­junc­tion or ex­tend it pend­ing her de­ter­mi­na­tion of the sub­stan­tive case.