Gary goes after ex-PSC chair after top cop merit list withdrawn

FORMER police commissioner Gary Griffith has trained his guns once again on former Police Service Commission (PSC) chairman Bliss Seepersad over the withdrawal of the merit list.

Griffith has filed a misfeasance in public office claim against Seepersad. Newsday understands the matter has not yet been assigned to a judge, but the State has entered an appearance for her, despite her being sued in a personal capacity.

In his lawsuit, Griffith contends Seepersad’s actions prevented him from returning as top cop in 2021.

Seepersad was appointed PSC chairman in March 2018 and resigned in September 2021, during a falling-out over the bungling of Griffith’s appointment and then suspension as acting commissioner.

Griffith was appointed commissioner on August 6, 2018, but was suspended by the Seepersad-led commission that month. She was the last of the four members to resign over Griffith’s suspension.

Other members Courtney McNish, Dr Susan Craig-James and Roger Kawalsingh resigned after alleging Seepersad acted alone in suspending Griffith.

Griffith’s lawsuit said at all times, Seepersad, as chairman, knew a quorum required there to be four other members, plus the chairman, to perform official acts.

“At trial, the claimant will maintain that action taken otherwise, without such a number of commissioners or, by the chairman alone, would be null, void, unconstitutional, unlawful and a breach of the duties of one’s office.”

On the merit list issue, his lawsuit contended that section 123 of the Constitution did not give Seepersad, the president, or the prime minister the power to withdraw an order of merit list once submitted to the Office of the President.

It said by withdrawing the merit list, and from minutes of the meetings of the PSC, which he obtained through freedom of information requests, it was “apparent” that Seepersad acted unlawfully and without authority, since she “never obtained the approval of the PSC.”

“At trial, the claimant will maintain that in so withdrawing the merit list the defendant knowingly acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally or so acted with reckless disregard for the limits on her power and the effect and harm that her actions would have on the professional reputation and interest of the claimant.

The same allegation was made against Seepersad on Griffith’s suspension.

The former top cop’s lawsuit contended that Seepersad’s withdrawal of the merit list, on which he was the top-ranked candidate, and her “unilateral and unlawful suspension” of him, resulted in “grave and extensive harm” to him, as he lost the opportunity to be appointed commissioner for another three years.

Seepersad was further accused of knowingly abusing her public power with reckless indifference to the limits or restraints on her power or authority.

“When she committed her unlawful acts, she either had the intention of harming the claimant or committed her unlawful acts with a conscious or reckless indifference to the probability of harm coming to the claimant.”

The lawsuit also referred to the pre-action protocol exchange between himself and Seepersad through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The latter, on Seepersad’s behalf, refused to admit she withdrew the 2021 order of merit list after it was submitted to the President, explain her authority to do so, say whether she had the approval of other members of the PSC or admit that she unilaterally suspended Griffith.

However, it noted, “In the said response, the defendant also made reference to ‘very disturbing information that she had received from the chairman of the National Security Council (the Prime Minister) and a ‘secret report’ that he had provided to her.

“At trial, the claimant will maintain that the said ‘secret report’ provided no lawful justification or basis for the defendant’s actions

“Though prepared ostensibly by two persons, it had been signed by one person and therefore was of questionable value or no value at all; the one-signature ‘secret report’ had been in the possession of the Prime Minister for at least eight months before he presented it to the defendant at President’s House; and the one-signature ‘secret report’ had not been sent to any investigating authority over those eight months and before the Prime Minister presented same to the defendant,” the claim said.

It also said the Prime Minister had kept  the“secret report” for eight months without officially sending it to the PSC and presenting it on the same day the chairman deposited the merit list with the Office of the President “ought to have raised the suspicion of the defendant and prevented her allowing her conduct to be influenced by same.”

Griffith is seeking compensation for injury to his reputation and loss of opportunity, including the compensation package he would have received as commissioner had he been given the opportunity of reappointment.

Griffith’s lawsuit was served on Seepersad on December 29. He is represented by Larry Lalla, SC, Shivanand Ramou­tar and Taruna Mangroo.