In defence of PSC chairman Gomes

THE EDITOR: I have noted with interest that since the beginning of the tenure of Dr Maria Gomes as chair of the Police Service Commission, that the media has relied on Prof Ramesh Deosaran, her predecessor, and at times PSC commissioner Martin George who served under both Deosaran and Gomes, to explain either the PSC’s role or its remit.

Gomes is taking the hit, so to speak, after inheriting the situation of having no CoP, having a police executive mistrusting of the performance appraisal system, which was made public in 2012 during the Dwayne Gibbs and Jack Ewatski era when they refused to sign their appraisals in a process overseen by Deosaran.

Gomes inherited a commission which Deosaran left with these two important issues to be addressed, and what appeared to be a real distrust of the commission. As I write I am also recalling that when the legal notices were changed regarding the duties of the CoP early in Edmund Dillon’s tenure as Minister of National Security, the Gomes-led PSC was not part of the discussion.

The Gomes-led commission has made the bold step of putting forward an acting deputy CoP, whose performance scores were assessed and discussed by PSC commissioners, for the post of CoP. There is now a public vilification of Gomes for supposedly asking people if they would be interested in another position.

This question has been asked by many recruiters when trying to find the “best fit” for applicants, but this question is now being seen as compromising the selection process for the CoP. Do we want someone who has applied for the position, or someone who, by the selection process, has emerged as the best candidate to address the crime situation here?

The media coverage of the CoP recruitment has continued to fuel the public’s distrust of our institutions. The names touted last week as those to be put forward for the CoP position, by reliable sources, were not the names that were revealed since the nomination letter was delivered to the President. So how reliable then are the sources who talked about the casting vote?

Further, where were the voices of Deosaran, George, and former PSC chairman Kenneth Lalla in the last three years regarding the constitutionality of a four-member commission?

The media reports implied that the people involved in the selection process were the four commissioners and the contracted company. Initially, this appeared to be a confidential process. So where did the leaks come from?

The intent of the selection of a CoP, to me, is to appoint someone who can lead the fight against crime, but the mere fact that there were leaks implies that crime was encouraged to get the information reported in the media.

For January, we are at 60 murders. Shouldn’t the Gomes-led commission be commended for making a step to re-establish stability, or are the usual elements of politics and race at play?

MAX FRAMPTON via e-mail

Comments

"In defence of PSC chairman Gomes"

More in this section