Bad service

Parliament’s Joint Select Committee on National Security last week heard how no disciplinary action ever started. The matter, involving three officers, went to a disciplinary tribunal on August 16 but after one member resigned in October, the Public Services Commission voided the tribunal on December 6, with a fresh one due to be named.

In the past, disciplinary tribunals in relation to the Prisons Service have comprised three members.

We can only assume this was the case in this matter. If so, why did the resignation of one member necessitate the voiding of the entire tribunal? Even assuming the tribunal was a one-person inquiry, it is unclear why there has been such a long delay in its revival. It is clear enough that the existing procedures in place are not working fast enough to allow the Public Service to be efficient and adequately responsive, particularly to matters of pressing national interest.

The three officers involved should have the benefit of a determination one way or another. A tribunal would give them a chance to defend their interests and would allow the case against them to be stated.

Sadly, it also seems to be the case that these tribunals can run into three to five years. That is simply too long a time for this matter to be left unresolved, as noted by members of the Parliament committee.

The association representing prisons officers has also raised questions about the scope of the disciplinary proceedings. It is not clear whether the matters before the tribunal will resolve the question of the custody chain of a firearm that was used in the deadly breakout. How did a prisoner get a hold of it behind prison walls? Such a matter is of immense concern, not just to officers but the members of the public who were endangered in the incident.

The failure of the Public Service to deal with this matter in a timely way is just one reason why the public has a right to be concerned about the state of the prison system.

The Parliament committee also questioned why a prisons officer accused of murder was allowed to go to a bank to conduct a transaction in full view of the public, including relatives of the murdered person.

That degree of facility is at odds with the failure to allow civilian Jerome Henry to attend his son’s funeral while he remained in jail because he could not post bail for on an offence of neglect. Was pure favouritism at play? Is there any policy to govern these issues? We call on prisons officials to explain what criteria they use in decisions to allow prisoners to leave the prisons outside of going to court or hospital.

We also question whether adequate security arrangements were put in place (even with the bank’s approval). There may well have been a good reason why the prisoner needed to attend the bank.

(An official release said the accused was allowed to transfer an account to allow his sister access to funds to take care of his son, according to a news story last week). However, there must be an easier way to transfer accounts while meeting banking stipulations. And the officers have a responsibility to act in an even-handed and fair manner to all prisoners.

We are call once again for better- devised protocols for the prisons service and for more public disclosure by the Public Service Commission on the nature of the delays to the disciplinary proceedings.

What does the “Service” in both Prisons Service and Public Service allude to if not to accountability to the general population for matters of direct concern to our safety?