AG defends Cabinet's extension of top cop's service

ATTORNEY General Reginald Armour, SC, says the State’s success in defending the challenge to the year-long extension of the Police Commissioner’s service demonstrates Cabinet’s commitment to the national interest.

Armour commented on the Privy Council’s dismissal of a challenge by activist Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj of the validity of the extension of Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher’s service beyond her retirement age.

The Privy Council held the move was lawful and constitutional in a ruling on December 19.

Shortly after the judgment was delivered, Armour said in a release, “The State's success at each stage of the litigation, from the initial hearing to this country’s highest recognised court of appeal, demonstrates and confirms that Cabinet acted consistently with the law and in the national interest to extend the service of Mrs Erla Harewood-Christopher as CoP.

“The jurisdiction of the Police Service Commission over the CoP was in no way compromised by the action taken, and so, remains intact, and will continue to be respected.”

Armour pointed out that December 19’s ruling was the third time the challenge to Harewood-Christopher’s extension of service – led by Anand Ramlogan, SC – “ has been found to have no merit.

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal also dismissed the claim and the appeal of Mr Ramlogan’s client.”

The dispute arose when Harewood-Christopher, who was appointed on February 3, 2023, reached the retirement age of 60 on May 15, 2023.

On May 4, 2023, the Cabinet advised the President to extend her service for a year. The recommendation was accepted and formalised through a gazetted notice on May 12, 2023. Harewood-Christopher’s service was then extended for a further year to May 15, 2025.

Maharaj initiated judicial review proceedings, arguing that the extension was unconstitutional. He 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.