Baffling vote

“PARLIAMENT is designed for discussion,” Patrick Manning said in 2006 as he defended legislation that removed the prime ministerial veto and forever changed the process by which police top brass are appointed. “You cannot have a process that says you send a recommendation but you cannot adjudicate.”

Yet, in rejecting, almost three decades later, one of the Police Service Commission (PSC)’s recommendations for deputy commissioner of police (DCP) without giving reasons, the Government has invited the inference that it wishes to revert to a system without full transparency.

Mr Manning was always of the view that the process wrought by his administration, devised in collaboration with the Basdeo Panday-led opposition, had “disadvantages.” But he wished to test it first, in a spirit of compromise, and envisioned reform at a later stage.

That never happened.

Still, it is clear the system was not meant to be a mere silent rubber-stamping. In the same debate in which Mr Manning spoke, Mr Panday, too, enunciated the view that it was preferable to have matters relating to candidates fully ventilated by elected representatives.

“It opens up the system,” he said.

However, last Friday’s developments lead us to wonder whether legislators simply poured new wine into old bottles.

Government MPs voted against the appointment of Wendell Lucas, a senior officer with 26 years’ service who is also an attorney, after describing him as “illustrious.” No explanation was advanced. Even the Speaker was stunned by the silence when she put the matter to MPs for approval.

Was this a spur-of-the-moment move? Did the mention of a pending court case play a role? Or was Cabinet of the view that constitutional reform is necessary first before this specific appointment could be made?

If there were misgivings with such a tenor, they were not apparent.

Camille Robinson-Regis, the Leader of Government Business, stoutly defended “the process” as she rebuffed Saddam Hosein, the Barataria/San Juan MP.

National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds, who raised the motion on Mr Lucas’s nomination, duly read out all the laws and provisions without suggesting they were viewed as defective.

Even Erla Harewood-Christopher, the current top cop, after the sitting quickly, welcomed the two new deputies who, unlike Mr Lucas, were successfully arried through the process.

When an employer rejects a candidate for a job, it is not uncommon for reasons to be given. Such disclosure, even if not a necessity, is regarded as good industrial-relations practice. It opens decision-making to scrutiny. It allows candidates to benefit from feedback.

From this perspective, Friday’s vote is doubly baffling.

It all reinforces the growing belief that we may well benefit from a brand new system, such as the one in the US, where candidates for key posts are questioned by a committee in the full glare of the public.