Sir Ellis Clarke: There is need for new Police Bills

Former President, Sir Ellis Clarke, chairman of the Technical Team which drafted the Police Service Reform Bills, yesterday defended the legislation saying that there was a need for changes in the Police Service. He was speaking at a news conference at the Hilton Trinidad.  Clarke explained that his team was given a mandate by the politicians to draft legislation to correct the perceived ills in the administation of the Police Service. Noting that one of the purposes of the Bills was to substitute the Police Management Authority for  the Police Service Commission, Clarke said: “You know the old saying if it works don’t fix it. But it (Police Service Commission) wasn’t working. And it is not for me to try and apportion blame or to accuse anybody of anything. But the fact was, that the system was not working, and this is what we got from talking to a number of former police commissioners.” He said everyone — including the bipartisan political committee which engaged him — was saying that they were not satisfied with the way the system was working. Turning directly to the question of the Police Service, Clarke said: “There is dissatisfaction within it, and dissatisfaction outside of it.

“What the Bills do is try to strengthen the effectiveness of the Police Service because the crime situation is a matter for the Police. No Government or no other body can deal with crime without having an effective Police Service. So what we sought to do...is to give the tools whereby a better treatment of the crime situation could ensue,” he said. He said the Technical Team followed the mandate given by the bipartisan political committee. That mandate involved drafting legislation to deal with the problems  identified by the committee, which included allegations of corruption in the Police Service and to review the system of recruitment and discipline and the management of the Police Service. He stressed that the Technical Team  stuck to this mandate. Clarke said wherever the Technical Team was innovative, it consulted with and received the approval of the joint political committee. That committee was led on one side by the then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, aided by attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and national security minister, Joe Theodore, while on the PNM side there was then Opposition Leader Patrick Manning and Camille Robinson-Regis. Saying therefore that he did not expect all this controversy, Clarke commented: “We hadn’t that foresight to see that political situations might alter cases.”

On the question raised by Panday about the need for checks and balances, Clarke stated that while the team introduced no new checks and balances, it did not dilute or diminish any of the existing ones. On the other issue raised by Panday about the President being a creature of the Government, Clarke stated that that was a political matter, outside of the ambit of the Technical Team. He said the team was not mandated to deal with the manner in which the President was appointed. “We were just asked to draft legislation aimed at cleansing the Police Service and strengthening its effectiveness,” he said. He noted, however, that before Trinidad and Tobago became a Republic, the Prime Minister had tremendous powers. He added that it was under the Republican Constitution the powers of the Prime Minister were “diluted” and certain powers were given to the President. On the issue of how the President is required to consult under the proposed legislation, Clarke said the team wanted to give the President flexibility in the appointment of the members of the Police Management Authority.

“What we envisaged was that the President would call in the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition; he would find out what recommendations they considered useful and if he saw there was not too much opposition on one side or the other against one candidate or another, he would say ‘couldn’t you talk this out and try and agree among yourselves.’  However if they failed to agree within a reasonable time, the President could then make an appointment in his own judgment,” Clarke explained. Asked whether the commissioner of police was given too much power over the 7,000 — plus members of the Police Service under the Bills, Clarke recalled the statement of a former commissioner that he was a “toothless tiger.” He also pointed out that the PSC said that it was not its business to manage the Police Service, but merely to make appointments and to discipline. He said several former police commissioners had found that the regulations to ensure fairness almost tied their  hands. “The legislation is saying this: ‘Commissioner, do your job. We have given you the tools, we have given you the power. If you fail to do it, the PMA has the right and power to dismiss or discipline you’.”

On the Opposition’s call for more consultation, Clarke said the team had consultation which it thought essential. He said he would find it difficult to see how there could be any criticism of the process employed by the Technical Team. Whether there should now be more consultation or not,  is a political matter, he said. Asked how he would feel if the legislation is defeated in the Parliament, Clarke said: “I have lived many decades and I have become accustomed to disappointments...But I think I can say on behalf of the team that we would feel a certain sense of disappointment, because we did work for a couple of years and worked very hard... And this was voluntary work... But if on the other hand there is some good reason not to proceed with it, we leave it to those who make political decisions. We shan’t complain, we shall only within ourselves feel ‘what a pity we worked so hard fruitlessly’.” (See Page 11)