Gov­ern­ment has done a new Le­gal No­tice chang­ing the process for se­lec­tion of a Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice and Deputy Com­mis­sion­er, re­vok­ing Le­gal No­tice 183 which had guid­ed the se­lec­tion process done by the last Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion led by Bliss Seep­er­sad.

The new Le­gal No­tice 277 fa­cil­i­tates a fresh search for a CoP and Deputy CoP. This means the mer­it list for Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice done by the pre­vi­ous PSC will no longer ap­ply.

The no­tice al­so changes the process to ap­point an act­ing CoP, lim­it­ing that to cer­tain ranks of of­fi­cers in the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice and not con­tract­ed peo­ple.

For­mer Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith has al­ready slammed the changes, call­ing it “des­per­a­tion by cer­tain in­di­vid­u­als” in mak­ing the changes to cri­te­ria, in­clud­ing, “draft­ing a no­tice de­lib­er­ate­ly to en­sure Gary Grif­fith can’t act as Com­mis­sion­er.”

The new no­tice was con­firmed to Guardian Me­dia on Thurs­day night. It is Le­gal No­tice 277 in the Le­gal Sup­ple­ment Part B (Vol 60, No 177) car­ry­ing Thurs­day’s date.

The no­tice is ti­tled “The Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice and Deputy Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice (Se­lec­tion Process (No 2) Or­der 2021.

It was signed by C Hem­lee, Sec­re­tary to Cab­i­net. The no­tice will be tabled in the Sen­ate next Tues­day.

The no­tice made by the Pres­i­dent un­der Sec­tion 123(2) of the Con­sti­tu­tion is sub­ject to neg­a­tive res­o­lu­tion of Par­lia­ment.

Sources said that meant the or­der was sub­sidiary leg­is­la­tion in the form of a reg­u­la­tion and once is­sued on Thurs­day, be­came law. It does not re­quire de­bate or votes in Par­lia­ment.

Apart from pro­vi­sions for se­lect­ing a CoP and Deputy CoP, the new or­der de­tails new process­es to un­der­take for act­ing ap­point­ments and re­vokes the Se­lec­tion Process Or­der of 2009.

An Oc­to­ber 14 le­gal judge­ment on the ap­point­ment of then act­ing CoP Grif­fith stat­ed that act­ing ap­point­ment was null and void and that al­so ap­plied to such ap­point­ments since 2009.

Pre­vi­ous claus­es al­lowed con­tract­ed peo­ple to act as CoP.

Un­der the new no­tice, on­ly of­fi­cers hold­ing or those act­ing in the of­fice of Deputy CoP or As­sis­tant Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice will now be con­sid­ered.

Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Fitzger­ald Hinds did not an­swer calls or mes­sages about the new or­der yes­ter­day. But an of­fi­cial, who did not wish to be named, said the new or­der was a move to cor­rect de­fi­cien­cies re­gard­ing the Oc­to­ber 14 rul­ing against act­ing ap­point­ments.

They not­ed that act­ing ap­point­ments will now have to be ap­proved by the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

The PSC, led by re­tired judge Ju­dith Jones, yes­ter­day ac­knowl­edged re­ceipt of Guardian Me­dia’s query on the new Le­gal Or­der 227 but did not give de­tails as to when the search for a new CoP will be­gin.

Grif­fith slams Young,
UNC fil­ing mo­tion

In an im­me­di­ate re­ac­tion to the new Le­gal No­tice 277, Op­po­si­tion Sen­a­tor Wade Mark said it was a move to de­bar for­mer Com­mis­sion­er Grif­fith from be­ing a CoP con­tender.

And Grif­fith, who had called for the pre­vi­ous mer­it list to be used, slammed act­ing At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Stu­art Young, say­ing the new no­tice was a “com­i­cal, lu­di­crous, des­per­ate at­tempt” to stop that orig­i­nal list from be­ing used.

Hours af­ter the new Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion was sworn in on No­vem­ber 16, Grif­fith’s at­tor­ney Lar­ry Lal­la wrote new chair­man, re­tired Jus­tice Ju­dith Jones, im­me­di­ate­ly cit­ing Grif­fith’s le­git­i­mate ex­pec­ta­tion on the last mer­it list and ask­ing that it be used. Lal­la stat­ed that Grif­fith wasn’t told why the mer­it list was with­drawn and he felt the sit­u­a­tion was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al and un­law­ful.

Yes­ter­day, Grif­fith, when asked if he would take le­gal ac­tion, cit­ed Lal­la’s let­ter, adding, “It’s not by chance act­ing AG Young rushed in the last minute be­fore demit­ting of­fice as AG to draft this (No­tice). This shows cow­ardice be­cause any­one doesn’t have the strength to make de­ci­sions...since they’re in con­trast to 89 per cent of the pop­u­la­tion.

“The pet­ti­ness was so bla­tant in this new no­tice—they made sure to re­move the as­pect for con­tract­ed peo­ple to act as CoP, lim­it­ing it to DCPs. So they draft­ed a no­tice de­lib­er­ate­ly to en­sure Gary Grif­fith can’t act as CoP, re­mov­ing every­thing done pre­vi­ous­ly that would have al­lowed me the op­por­tu­ni­ty to act. It shows the des­per­a­tion by cer­tain in­di­vid­u­als.”

In Ju­ly, Op­po­si­tion sen­a­tor Mark brought a mo­tion to an­nul Le­gal Or­der 183 but this failed. Yes­ter­day, Mark said once Le­gal Or­der 277 is tabled in Sen­ate next week, he will file a mo­tion against it. He said it placed pow­er in the hands of the Prime Min­is­ter and Cab­i­net, since the new or­der “dumped” the last mer­it list which was tak­en to Pres­i­dent’s House in Au­gust by the pre­vi­ous PSC chair­man and “a high pub­lic of­fi­cial in­ter­vened.” He said that list was with­drawn.

“One would have thought the new com­mis­sion would have ac­cessed that list to de­ter­mine its va­lid­i­ty and ap­pli­ca­tion to their on­go­ing work on ap­point­ments—the PM’s hand­cuffed the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion from ex­am­in­ing the old mer­it list!” Mark added.

Deputy Com­mis­sion­er Mc­Don­ald Ja­cobs re­cent­ly said he would con­sid­er ap­ply­ing for the post of Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice.

Act­ing CoP from TTPS ranks on­ly

Un­der the new Le­gal Or­der 227 for act­ing ap­point­ments to the of­fice of Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice, the PSC shall es­tab­lish and main­tain an Or­der of Mer­it List list­ing, in de­scend­ing or­der of se­nior­i­ty, the of­fi­cers who (a) hold­ing or act­ing in the of­fice of Deputy CoP or As­sis­tant Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice; and (b) pos­sess the qual­i­fi­ca­tions and ex­pe­ri­ence re­quired for ap­point­ment to the of­fice of CoP.

• Where–(a) the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice is or is like­ly to be – (i) ab­sent from T&T; (ii) on va­ca­tion leave; or (iii) un­able by rea­son of ill­ness or any oth­er rea­son to per­form the func­tions of of­fice or (b) the of­fice of COP is or is like­ly to be­come va­cant, the PSC shall se­lect the most se­nior of­fi­cer on the Or­der of Mer­it List and sub­mit that of­fi­cer’s name to the Pres­i­dent in ac­cor­dance with the pro­ce­dure set out in sec­tion 123 of the Con­sti­tu­tion.

• Where, in re­la­tion to sub­clause (3), the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives does not ap­prove of the most se­nior of­fi­cer on the Or­der of Mer­it List pur­suant to sec­tion 123 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, sub­se­quent nom­i­na­tions in or­der of mer­it may be sub­mit­ted to the HOR from the Or­der of Mer­it List on­ly in ac­cor­dance with the pro­ce­dure in the Con­sti­tu­tion.

• The “Or­der of Mer­it List” means the list es­tab­lished and main­tained un­der sub­clause (2). 5. (1)

Notwith­stand­ing clause 3, the se­lec­tion process for act­ing ap­point­ments to the of­fice of Deputy Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice shall be as pro­vid­ed in this clause.

• For act­ing ap­point­ments to the of­fice of Deputy CoP, the Com­mis­sion shall es­tab­lish and main­tain an Or­der of Mer­it List which shall list, in de­scend­ing or­der of se­nior­i­ty, the of­fi­cers who– (a) are hold­ing or act­ing in the of­fice of As­sis­tant Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice; and (b) pos­sess the qual­i­fi­ca­tions and ex­pe­ri­ence re­quired for ap­point­ment to the of­fice of Deputy Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice.

• Where– (a)a Deputy CoP is or is like­ly to be– (i) ab­sent from TT; (ii) on va­ca­tion leave; or (iii) un­able by rea­son of ill­ness or any oth­er rea­son to per­form the func­tions of Deputy CoP; or (b)an of­fice of Deputy CoPis or is like­ly to be­come va­cant, the PSC shall se­lect the most se­nior of­fi­cer on the Or­der of Mer­it List and sub­mit that of­fi­cer’s name to the Pres­i­dent in ac­cor­dance with the pro­ce­dure set out in sec­tion 123 of the Con­sti­tu­tion.

• Where, in re­la­tion to sub­clause (3), the HOR does not ap­prove of the most se­nior of­fi­cer on the Or­der of Mer­it List pur­suant to sec­tion 123 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, sub­se­quent nom­i­na­tion in or­der of mer­it may be sub­mit­ted to the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives from the Or­der of Mer­it List on­ly in ac­cor­dance with the pro­ce­dure set out in the Con­sti­tu­tion.