Vetting by minister

PUTTING aside the substantive question of her fitness to become a deputy commissioner of police (DCP), the process by which the Government approved Suzette Martin’s elevation to this role reveals serious deficiencies.

On March 18, government MPs approved, without opposition support, the Police Service Commission (PSC)’s nomination of Ms Martin. Two officials in the Rowley administration spoke during the debate on the approval motion: Fitzgerald Hinds, Minister of National Security, and Ayanna Webster-Roy, Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister.

Mr Hinds, as he “forcefully and enthusiastically” commended the nominee, said, “I happen to know the officer personally.” He further disclosed he had spoken with police officers about matters related to their colleague. “I must admit on this occasion I would have consulted with the senior ranks of the TTPS,” he said, without giving details. “I can tell you that I gleaned and I gather that there is support for Ms Martin.”

Ms Webster-Roy, meanwhile, said she, too, knew the candidate and had no doubt Ms Martin “fits the bill.” “Today I stand before you a proud Roxborough girl because I know this individual,” the Tobago West MP said. “I feel proud that today I have the opportunity to vote for somebody I could vouch for.”

But how many people applying for key jobs in this country have the privilege of knowing two people in Parliament who can vouch for them? If that is not bad enough, what about the fact that the police are meant to be rigorously independent?

When we consider the sensitive role played by the service, the appointment of police top brass based on being known and approved of by politicians – outside the ordinary ambit of the committee-style, parliamentary weighing of a candidacy – is plainly dangerous. Deep personal ties to a candidate should be reason enough for an MP to declare a conflict.

The very rationale for the existence of the PSC – and by extension the chamber-wide parliamentary approval process – is to insulate the police from excessive partisan overreach.

The disclosure by Mr Hinds that he conducted soundings among officers goes against the spirit of all of this. In effect, the minister has asked officers who they want.

Ms Martin was duly nominated by the independent PSC. But when set against the unexplained rejection by the Government of the last PSC nominee, Wendell Lucas, to the exact same position and the languishing of nominations past, a worrying picture is painted indeed.

It is a picture that suggests candidates might be approved not just because of their qualifications, but also because of who they know, or, rather, who knows them.

This is a disservice to all the applicants. And it is a cheapening of the constitutional process.