Griffith wants answers from new PSC on merit list of CoP candidates

FORMER police commissioner Gary Griffith's attorney has written to new Police Service Commission (PSC) chairman Justice Judith Jones for an update on the status of the merit list which was presented to the President in August but immediately withdrawn.

Attorney Larry Lalla wrote to Jones on Tuesday, the same day she and four other members of the PSC were sworn in by President Paula-Mae Weekes.

Lalla said Griffith had a legitimate expectation that the merit list of candidates for commissioner would be re-submitted to the President. This is required by section 123 (3) of the Constitution, which sets out the process for the selection of a commissioner, his deputies, and an acting commissioner.

In October, the High Court said the process for a selection of a commissioner and acting commission had to comply with section 123 of the Constitution. The court also invalidated Griffith’s acting appointment.

The President, immediately after the court’s ruling, said she received the list on August 11, but it was immediately revoked by then PSC chairman Bliss Seepersad.

Lalla said Griffith had “serious concerns” about the constitutionality and lawfulness of the withdrawal of the merit list.

Apart from the update, he said his client also wants to know the reason and justification for its withdrawal after it was submitted to the President.

He also wants to know when they can expect that list to be resubmitted to her.

“Chairman, I am sure that you and your fellow commissioners have taken note of the fact that the unrefuted information in the public domain is that the last chairman’s ‘withdrawal’ of the merit list on August 11th 2021 took place after she was met at the Office of the President by a public official who had an interest in preventing the merit list from going forward to the Parliament and who influenced the ‘withdrawal.’

“And further that such ‘withdrawal’ by the last chairman appears to have been a unilateral act not previously approved by her fellow commissioners.”

Lalla said if this was correct, they were concerned that the new commissioner is not seen as facilitating the intent of “that public official by refusing our reasonable requests…or by engaging in a finessed avoidance of the issues we have raised.”

Griffith is one of the candidates for appointment to the office of the commissioner after undergoing the various stages of the process.

Lalla said the legality and constitutionality of the withdrawal of the list were not readily apparent or discernible and urgently required a public explanation by the commission.

“To date, Mr. Griffith, as a candidate for the post of Commissioner of Police, has not been informed by the PSC of the reason why the completed merit list was withdrawn or its present status.”

“...At all times, as a candidate in the selection process, my client expected and had a right to expect, that proper procedure and all relevant constitutional provisions would be adhered to by the PSC in the process of selecting the country’s new Commissioner of Police.

“We are of the view that on its face, and without any, or proper explanation from the PSC as to the reason(s) why the submitted merit list was subsequently withdrawn, the act of withdrawal was unconstitutional and unlawful.”

Lalla said as a newly-appointed commission, and in the national interest, it was hoped the new PSCwould see the need for an explanation and clarity on the issue.