The Prime Minister — Constitutional dictator

THE EDITOR: Following the Devant Maharaj matter, we need to revisit the Constitutional provision which gives the Prime Minister a veto over all senior public servants. This veto is not compatible with the rights of citizens in an independent nation, and in a democratic society.  As chair of the Statutory Authorities Service Commission, Mr Louis Bryan has said that the Constitution did not give the Prime Minister a veto over SASC appointments, but he judged it appropriate for the Prime Minister to enjoy the same veto over the SASC, which under the Constitution he exercises over other Service Commissions’ appointments. The Prime Minister’s veto list is in fact quite formidable, and while hesitating to bore readers, I must catalogue them to illustrate.

For the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, he has veto powers over the Solicitor General, Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Registrar General, Chief State Solicitor, and even — the Director of Public prosecutions, (Section 111:3). For the Public Service Commission, he has a veto over all Permanent Secretaries, Chief Technical Officers, the Director of Personnel Administration, Heads of Government Departments, the Chief Professional Adviser in all ministries, plus the Deputies to all the above (Section 121:5). As if those were not enough, Subsection 6(b) further gives the PM power of appointment over each and every foreign service employee, at every overseas mission, not excluding the lowliest clerk or janitor.

For the Police Service Commission, he has a veto over the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioners (Section 123:3). The Prime Minister has no veto over the Teaching Service Commission (which only appoints teachers). The first question, which springs to mind, is the much vaunted and misconceived notion of “independence” of Service Commissions. How can the Service Commissioners be independent when they must only appoint those acceptable to the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister’s veto is only against the senior and deputy posts, but common sense tells us that not only will the senior officers be subservient to the elected Prime Minister, but all lower rank officers must now to the line to earn his/her promotion.

Which explains why a police officer in Tobago will release a Bajan fisherman on a senior official’s instructions, but cannot recollect the official’s name; and a DPP who escaped the Prime Minister’s veto has difficulty in bringing closure to that fishy business. The result — the Prime Minister has an autocratic control over every public servant, which I deem a serious flaw in our Constitution, that Sir Ellis might explain. I have not researched whether the British, Canadian or Indian Prime Ministers enjoy a veto power similar to ours, for I doubt that the people of those countries will tolerate such a Constitutional dictatorship and nepotism. My email enquiry of January 11 to the UK High Commission has not yielded a response yet — but I sent a reminder.

MICHAEL J WILLIAMS
Maracas Valley