SASC consulted with PM

THE EDITOR: The Statutory Authorities’ Service Commission has noted the public comments made by the attorney representing Mr Devant Maharaj, Marketing and Public Relations Officer, National Lotteries Control Board, in relation to the judgment delivered by Madame Justice Mira Dean-Armorer in High Court Action No 305/2004. The Commission has not yet received a copy of the said judgment but proposes to meet on January 4, 2005 to study its contents and decide further action.

The salient facts in this matter are that the Commission selected Mr Maharaj for an acting appointment as Deputy Director, National Lotteries Control Board and in accordance with its normal procedure consulted with the Honourable Prime Minister who indicated that he could not agree. Mr Maharaj filed for a judicial review of the Commission’s action. The Court has apparently ruled in Mr Maharaj’s favour. Before the general debate on the attorney’s comments goes askew, it might be useful to inform the public that existing legal provisions regarding the governance of Trinidad and Tobago require the Public and Police Service Commissions to consult with the Prime Minister before making, where applicable  appointments to the offices of Permanent Secretary or Head of Department, to the offices of Chief Professional Adviser or Chief Technical Officer of all Government Agencies and to the office of Deputy to any of these offices — Sections 121 (3) and 123 (3) of the Constitution refer. This has been the case since the attainment of self-government in 1956. The reasons for such arrangements should be clear and need not be explained here.

The SASC does not have constitutional cover but, by convention, for all the 38 years of its existence, followed the same procedure in respect of appointments to Heads and Deputy Heads of all Statutory Authorities. This represents an alignment with the procedures followed by its constitutional counterparts. I would suspect that the judge’s ruling on the Maharaj case was based upon the premise that the conventional practice in use, even after so many years, was not legally appropriate. If this is the case, the SASC will perforce alter its procedures accordingly. The expressed view by the attorney for Mr Maharaj that the SASC was being political when it consulted the Prime Minister was an unfortunate and unnecessary extension of the thinking behind the consultation process. What is more it also suggests that the Public and Police Service Commissions by virtue of their own similar procedures are in fact also political.

This inference should be resisted. There are obvious reasons for the consultation process which applies only to a limited number of senior public offices of the Public Service while leaving appointments to other offices a matter for independent action by Service Commissions. Applying the consultation process does not of itself render a Commission political. For these reasons the call for the resignation of Members of the SASC on the basis of political bias cannot be justified.

LOUIS BRYAN
Chairman, SASC