‘Give us military funeral too’

ONE hundred and fifty-three Municipal police officers have filed a constitutional motion against the Attorney General claiming discrimination and inequality of treatment meted out to them by the Government in respect of their terms and conditions of employment. One of the grounds of their discontent is the refusal of the Government to give them a full military funeral when they die while on active duty. They also complained that their families do not get a family grant if they die on duty. The voluminous motion with affidavits of all the applicants and which arrived in boxes, was filed yesterday in the Port-of-Spain High Court Registry. The municipal officers, who are employed with seven Municipal Corpora-tions, will be represented at the hearing by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, Garnet Mungalsingh and Darrell Allahar.

In their constitutional motion, the officers claimed that they have for several years endured disparity in salary, meal and housing allowances, pension and gratuity as well as several other matters. They claimed that the State, through the inaction of both the Statutory Authorities Commis-sion and the Cabinet or a Minister, refused and failed to make necessary regulations so as to equate the terms and conditions of their employment with those of the members of the Police Service of equivalent rank, thereby breaching their rights to the enjoyment of property, equality before the law and the protection of the law, and to equality of treatment. The officers contended that they have been discriminated against for almost 30 years. Unlike members of the Police Service, Municipal police officers who die while on active duty are refused a funeral with full military rites. They claim that a funeral grant is also refused to their families should they die while on active duty. This, despite the fact that their entrance requirements, training, functions and duties are the same as the “regular” police officers.

Municipal police officers fall under the scrutiny of the Police Complaints Authority and are open to all the liabilities of “regular” police officers. They said they have been forced, reluctantly, to seek redress in the courts because of the continuing failure of the Government to address their concerns. The applicants further claim that the failure of the Cabinet to make certain regulations under Section 26 of the Statutory Authorities Act, does not allow legal recognition of any association formed by them thereby preventing them absolutely from being able to negotiate terms and conditions with the Chief Personnel Officer, the result of which is that they are entirely without effective representation and are being denied freedom of association as guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The officers complained that the Government which discriminates against them deliberately blocks them from negotiating terms and conditions. The applicants rank from assistant superintendent to constable.