A GUY'S VIEW - Observing the rule of law

There have been strident calls for the removal of the Attorney General from office.

Were ours a mature democracy, given his track record, there would have been no need for such calls. A person with a sense of responsibility to the populace would have resigned. But, as a legal colleague commented, “But alas….”

While attention has been focused on the end result of the most recent debacle of appointment to a non-existent post, there are other factors that should be considered. It seems strange that a Services Commission would proceed to recommend the appointment of a person to a post that does not exist. This raises other serious questions:

Who made the recommendation that there should be a second post of Deputy Commissioner in light of the fact that an earlier recommendation was rejected?

Was the Protective Services Commission advised that an executive order could repeal primary legislation by implication?

Is there still a secretary to the Commission whose duty it is to advise the Commission on aspects of its functions?

Did the secretary to the Commission advise that the appointment of a second Deputy Commissioner was in order, or was that decision made contrary to and in spite of her advice?

Did the Commission seek advice from legal counsel to whom it has access?

Does the Commission still have confidence in its advisor(s)?

Was the Commission aware of or advised with respect to the requirements of the Public Service Act for the legitimate appointment of persons to posts in the public service?

If so, was the vacancy for the new post of Deputy Commissioner of Police advertised and interested candidates interviewed, as is required by the Public Service Act?

It seems that the Attorney General has a lot more to apologise for than ignoring the legal requirements stipulated in the Police Act with respect to established posts in the Force.

Even if the illegality of the “appointment” were covered up by retroactive legislation, how does he address the illegality of ignoring the selection process which is stipulated in the Public Service Act? The one thing that he was right about is that primary legislation, like the Police Act, cannot be repealed by implication of an executive order or Statutory Instrument, as the Prime Minister supposes.

Interviews for one post cannot suffice for the filling of anther one. And a ranking list of unsuccessful candidates cannot have a shelf life of seven years. The practice is that such a priority list ceases to be relevant after two years. It is wrong, therefore, to use the results of an interview in 2012 or 2013 to promote a person in 2020, without going back to the process stipulated in the Public Service Act.

In two short years, this Government has managed to dismantle all respect for the observance of legal processes. There is a penchant for acting without restraint and then changing the law to justify wild acts. From day one, this pattern started to evolve.

Thus far, nothing done has proven to be an improvement on what went before, but one cannot hold a person accountable for acting within the confines of their abilities and resources. The problem, though, is that the country will suffer as a result of carelessness.

Meanwhile, the Force stands on the threshold of another period of division and challenges to loyalty. Since it is being politicised, this is to be expected, for our brand of politics is always divisive. While this may be survivable in many organisations, even if unfortunate, it cannot be accommodated in the Royal Barbados Police Force.

The police cannot be selective in the delivery of the crucial service they provide to the public, and politics in Barbados, in recent times, is all about who one supports.

I served under a Commissioner who pledged not to vote while he was in office. That probably did not dull his senses to how the country was being run, but he thought that, on principle, as head of the Force, he should be completely unbiased in all aspects of his life. His was an admirable stance, but, in modern times, an uncommon one.

Too much damage has already been done for the slate to be wiped clean and to start fresh, but this is an opportunity to breathe a new lease of life into the management of the country’s legal affairs.