Thank you, Sir Ellis

THE COUNTRY should be grateful to Sir Ellis Clarke for clearly recounting the genesis and creation of the Police Reform Bills which have been the subject of so much controversy in the country. Sir Ellis, who headed the Technical Team which drafted the bills, has placed the entire issue into its true bipartisan perspective, thus removing, in our view, much of the misconceptions and misunderstandings that have surrounded the legislation. In the process, we believe he has also refuted most of the misguided criticisms levelled at the bills from different quarters, including the Opposition UNC, and it is now left to be seen what the outcome of Tuesday’s debate in the House will be. The idea, fostered largely by the UNC, that the Police  Reform Bills are the product of the Manning government designed as a means of controlling the Police Service should now be permanently buried for the piece of mischief that it is.

Sir Ellis points out that his Team followed the mandate given it by a five-man bipartisan political committee led on one side by then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and on the other by then Opposition Leader Patrick Manning. In light of Sir Ellis’ detailed and straight-forward account, in fact, one becomes amazed at the extent and fervour of uninformed criticism which these bills have attracted. It is certainly not true to claim, for example, that the UNC was not consulted in the drafting of the legislation as Sir Ellis recalls that, whenever his Team was innovative, “it consulted with and received the approval of the joint political committee.” One is flabbergasted, moreover, by the attempt of Mr Panday and the UNC to distance themselves from the creation of the bills, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was their government which took the decision in the first place, which subsequently formed the bipartisan committee on the Police Service and which eventually brought the measures to the House. The bills, as Sir Ellis explains, were the product of the Technical Team in fulfilling its mandate “to draft legislation aimed at cleansing the Police Service and strengthening its effectiveness.”

As far as the UNC was concerned, the legislation then was quite in order, it presented no threat to the independence of the Police and required no additional checks and balances. What a difference the change in UNC fortunes has made! Now in Opposition, it is vociferously singing a different tune, portraying the bills as an ominous attempt to exert political influence over the Police Service. Sir Ellis, himself, appears to be somewhat surprised by the controversy its opposition has created and, in nice diplomatic language, observes: “We hadn’t that foresight to see that political situations might alter cases.” In addition to Sir Ellis’ account, we published yesterday the entire speech given by former Prime Minister Panday, who was then also Minister of National Security, when he presented the package of legislation to the House in July 2001 “to be enacted as a matter of urgency.” The speech, urging reform of the Police Service, makes fascinating reading since it reveals the two sides of Mr Panday. The country must now be eagerly awaiting his contribution to Tuesday’s debate.