Let's get it right

THE EDITOR: One of the legal requirements for the office of Commissioner of Police is that he/she must have at least fifteen years experience of increasing responsibility in “law enforcement.”

The current candidate being bandied about is retired Captain Gary Griffith. I am not debating the number of years here for Captain Griffith. I want to look at whether he satisfies the criteria of having experience in “law enforcement” as opposed to “military experience.”

While it may be argued that the military upholds some of the laws of the land, they cannot and do not involve law enforcement (except where there are joint police-army operations but the army only does military duties in such instances). Law enforcement is the responsibility of police officers and not military officers. There is a clear distinction between both entities.

I think the Police Service Commission and members of parliament need to be very careful that they do not break the law in appointing a military officer to fill the position of a law enforcement officer – which the law requires.

I also think that if the authorities equate a military officer to a law enforcement officer, they are opening themselves up for legal action.

If the authorities were to ask experts in the field of criminology, criminal justice and policing, they would state that there is a clear and drastic difference between a military officer and a law enforcement officer.

Please do not take any decision in this appointment process that would even further prevent the appointment of a commissioner of police.

By the way, any acting commissioner of police has all of the powers of an appointed commissioner of police, so there is no excuse for such a person not being able to function. It may hinder the promotions of other ranks of officers, but it does not negatively affect the functioning of the commissioner. We have to remove people and personalities from the picture and focus on what the law says is required.

Deepak Ram via e-mail