Cops’ transfer ‘stayed’ via cellular text message

A SAN FERNANDO High Court judge, State attorney and the attorney representing eight transferred policemen were yesterday puzzled over a text message the officers’ attorney received on his cellular phone, which stated that the officers’ transfer had been “cancelled.” However, after checks by State attorney Sanjeev Lalla, who used the cellular phone of Anand Ramlogan — who is representing the transferred officers — it was revealed that the transfer orders against the officers had indeed been “stayed” and not “cancelled.”

The officers are contending in their lawsuit that they were transferred to various police stations on April 22, after allegations they were protecting certain drug lords, distributing seized marijuana and hampering the efforts of the Organised Crime and Narcotics Unit. Prior to the transfer order, the officers were based at Western Division. Two weeks ago, Justice David Myers granted the lawmen leave to apply for judicial review of the transfer. According to the policemen’s affidavits, this was done via telephone. The officers are Cpl William Constantine, PCs Adolphus O’ Neil, Randolph St Bernard, Marc Husbands and Sylvan Stewart.

When the case came up for hearing yesterday, Ramlogan told Justice Myers he received a text message on his cellular phone from a Superintendent of Police, which stated the officers’ transfer “had been cancelled.” With respect to the message, Ramlogan told the judge that the court was entitled to make an order which would precipitate him withdrawing the policemen’s lawsuit against the Commissioner of Police (CoP) and Public Services Commission (PSC). But State attorney Sanjeev Lalla, appearing for the Commissioner of Police and the Police Services Commission, told Justice Myers he was not in a position to confirm such a message.

Justice Meyers remarked that if in fact the transfer had been “cancelled,” the objective of the applicants’ lawsuit had been achieved. A withdrawal of the lawsuit was the next step, the judge added. But Lalla intimated to the judge that it could have been a “stay of the transfers” that was meant in the text message, because he had not been formally instructed otherwise. There was much discussion between the judge and attorneys about the use of the legal meaning of the words “cancel” as against “staying of transfers.” Justice Myers then requested Lalla to find out about the status of the message. Using Ramlogan’s cellular phone, Lalla made some calls.

The State attorney returned to the court to inform Justice Myers that he had been officially informed by high-ranking police officials that the transfer had been “stayed.” Attorney Ramlogan indicated his intentions to submit legal arguments on the implications of the legal meaning of the word “cancel” as against “stay.” The judge gave directions for the State to file affidavits by June 18 in response to the policemen’s transfer. The applicant can reply within six days. The case was tentatively fixed for July 5.