Activist 'disappointed' by Privy Council's ruling on CoP's extension

ACTIVIST Ravi Balgobin Maharaj says he is disappointed by the Privy Council’s dismissal of his challenge to the extension of the Police Commissioner’s service.

In a statement on December 19, Maharaj referred to a paragraph in the ruling in which the Privy Council concluded that section 75(a) of the Police Service Act did not include clear language on the President’s discretion and affirmed that she was obligated to follow the Cabinet’s advice on extending Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher’s service for a year in the national interest.

“In my humble opinion, there has never been a more disappointing and disheartening conclusion arrived at in a legal ruling of this nature,” Maharaj said.

He said throughout the ruling, the Privy Council maintained there was a separation of powers and independence of the police service, “but in their conclusion, find that the President is obligated to conform to the will of the Cabinet as a result of the shortcomings of the legislation and the failure of Parliament to recognise and update these deficiencies.

“As such, this nation is forced to contend with a commissioner and a police service that continue to fail in their duty to protect our citizens daily.”

Maharaj said the lawsuit was launched in the hope that the court would have “corrected the situation.”

However, he said through amendments to the legislation, “there has been a concerted effort to divert more power and control of the police service to the Cabinet and the Executive, while diminishing the powers of the Police Service Commission.

“It is because of these amendments that even the Judiciary are unable to take any action that might reinforce or reintroduce those former protections,” he added.

Maharaj said his legal team, led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, was working on several other possible legislative and constitutional infractions by the government.

On December 19, the Privy Council dismissed Maharaj’s challenge and held the extension was lawful and constitutional.

In his judicial review challenge, Maharaj contended that the power to extend the commissioner’s service was essentially an appointment, a function reserved for the PSC under the Constitution.

He also argued that the President should have exercised independent judgment under section 80(1) of the Constitution rather than acting solely on Cabinet’s advice.