Cops sue Cabinet

TWO policemen have filed a High Court action challenging Cabinet’s authority to appoint the Public Service Examination Board, which conducts and oversees examinations for persons in the public service, including police officers. The action is an attempt by the officers to correct a situation, which they contend, has been in existence since 1966, where the Cabinet of the Government of the day appoints the Public Service Examination Board which conducts these examinations.  One such examination body appointed by Cabinet is for the purpose of conducting promotion examinations in the Police Service.

In an application for judicial review, filed in the Sub-Registry, San Fernando, Police Corporals’ Eusebio Cooper and Clifford Balbosa, are contending that the operation of the Police Service must not be influenced by political interference of the ruling political party, at any given time. The case will come up for hearing on Monday before Justice David Myers, in the Chamber Court, San Fernando. When the matter was called before Madam Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, she described the action of Cabinet taking on the role of the Public Service Commission, as “scandalous.” Justice Amrika Tiwary, before whom the matter was also called on a separate occasion, deemed the case urgent and of national importance. The lawsuit was filed by attorney Anand Ramlogan. The basis of the lawsuit stems from policemen who wrote police promotion exams in August 2002, but are still to get their results.  Police Social and Welfare Association  president Insp Christopher Holder took issue with the delay in releasing the results of the exams, stating that results of 1999 promotion exams, were released in 2001.

But in response to Insp Holder and the policemen’s lawsuit, the Public Service Commission, through director of Personnel Administration Michael Mahabir, stated in an affidavit that the sole responsibility for the conduct of examinations fell under the purview of the Public Service Examination Board, “which is a Cabinet-appointed body.” The two officers, however, are contending in their writ that the appointment of the Board by Cabinet, managed by the executive arm of Government, for the purpose of conducting or marking promotion examinations, was unconstitutional. In outlining the basis for this contention, the writ stated that Section 123 of the Constitution vested sole jurisdiction to appoint, promote, transfer and discipline policemen in the Police Service Commission.  The director of Personnel Administration (Mahabir), the writ stated, is the only person authorised by the Public Service Commission regulations to appoint an examination body. Cabinet, the writ stated, does not. The writ also stated that the appointment of the examining board by Cabinet for the purpose of conducting promotion examinations, was in conflict with the intention and policy of the commission’s regulations, which was to insulate the Police Service from all possible political interference.