Third cop complains about ACP promotion process

A High Court judge will rule on a lawsuit by two acting Assistant Commissioners of Police (ACP) and a senior superintendent on the assessment process done by a consultancy firm for first-division police officers in January.

On September 17, Justice Joan Charles gave directions for filing submissions and said she will give a ruling on January 17, 2025.

In the interim, a midnight injunction directing Commissioner of Police Erla Harewood-Christopher to preserve two vacancies in the office of ACPs remains in place.

The judge will also hear submissions from attorneys for a third officer who has challenged the process for ACPs. That officer, who did not want her name publicised, was granted leave to challenge the process and join the two others.

Another hearing of the three joined complaints will be held on September 26.

On September 10, Charles granted leave to acting ACPs Winston Maharaj and Subhash Ramkhelawan to pursue their challenge against the CoP and Odyssey ConsultInc Ltd (OCL).

Justice Christopher Sieuchand granted the injunction at midnight on September 12, directing the commissioner to hold two positions vacant.

There were ten vacancies for ACPs. In a promotion exercise for ACPs on September 12, eight were appointed.

In her lawsuit, the third officer is seeking declarations on her complaint that the assessment was unlawful, as there were four differently constituted panels to hold the oral assessments.

She has also complained that her interview was unfair and the scores she received were irrational. She is also contending that the denial of her request for a new interview was unfair and the disclosure of her scores was illegal.

She wants a new panel to interview her.

In their lawsuit, Maharaj and Ramkhelawan complained that Charles’s order had been served on the commissioner and the consultancy firm, but an order-of-merit list was still generated and submitted to Harewood-Christopher.

Their lawsuit seeks an order directing OCL to re-interview them before a new panel and for the commissioner to reserve two ACP vacancies pending the hearing and determination of their claim. They are also seeking disclosure of the interview score sheets and other material the panel used to determine their marks, as well as the composition of each panel.

When they served Charles’s order, OCL was asked to hold its hand on generating a merit list and the commissioner from going ahead with the promotion until September 17 for the hearing of their injunction application. The officers said they would be prejudiced, as there would be no other rank in the first division they could fill if the promotion exercise went ahead.

The emergency application said, “The intended first and second defendants have, therefore, acted in a manner which causes the intended first and second claimants a significant degree of disquiet, that the intended first and second do not appear to be willing to await the outcome of the interim relief application, but instead have chosen to proceed to promote persons, despite the order of the court.”

The two officers are seeking declarations that the assessment process for the rank of ACP was unlawful. They have specifically complained about a member of one of the four interview panels – a retired police officer – for their oral assessment on September 3. Both previously worked with the retired officer and had a “fractious” relationship.

They both complained about the retired officer’s inclusion on the panel before they were assessed, and their lawsuit said it was irrational. They have alleged apparent bias in the process.

Maharaj has since sought disclosure of the marking sheets for his assessment.

Ramkhelawan complained he was not told of a general briefing the consultancy firm held before the oral assessment, where he could have raised his concerns.

Both senior officers fear their allegedly compromised assessment could affect their placement on the order-of-merit list and would be prejudiced.

Their lawsuit further alleged a fundamental breach of confidentiality, as the written assessment scores of nine other candidates were disclosed to one of them. Their lawsuit said OCL was required to rate the candidates, create the merit list and submit it to the commissioner, and the “unauthorised disclosure” was unlawful.

The officers are represented by attorneys Vashisht Seepersad and Leon Kalicharan. The third officer is represented by attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon.