REGRETTABLY, again I find myself impelled to respond to another publication of the Stabroek News. On this occasion, it is the Editorial of the edition of the newspapers published on January 9, 2012, which dealt primarily with the allegations of sexual misconduct which have been levelled against Police Commissioner, Henry Greene, and the response of the government to these allegations.
It is public knowledge that the Police Commissioner has proceeded on leave and the government, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, has made a decision to investigate the said allegations. In this regard, the services of investigators from Jamaica have been engaged to assist the Guyana Police Force with those investigations. It is also public knowledge that the Jamaican investigators are in Guyana and the investigations have commenced.
The gravamen of my dissent lies against the opinion expressed in the last paragraph of the said Editorial.  It reads thus:
“Ideally, serious allegations against the Commissioner should trigger Article 225 of the constitution. A tribunal can then be appointed and it can determine the matter. This would have required either the Prime Minister or the Chairman of the Police Service Commission referring this issue to the President followed by the appointment of a tribunal. Why this was not done is unclear and detracts from the seriousness with which this matter should be handled.”
It is my considered opinion that the Editor of Stabroek News palpably misconstrued the purport and intent of Article 225 of the Constitution. Article 225, essentially, sets out the grounds upon which certain constitutional office holders, including the Commissioner of Police, can be removed from office, by whom they can be removed and the procedure which must be followed for their proper and lawful removal. The grounds for removal from office of the said office holders are, explicitly, stated in Article 225(2) to be, inability to discharge the functions of office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause whatsoever) or, for misbehaviour.
It is excruciatingly plain that in the instant case, having regard to the nature of the allegations made, for the purpose of Article 225, the applicable ground would be misbehaviour. An amalgam of the rules of fairness, natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence, would legally oblige that an investigation be first done to determine whether or not there is any basis for the allegations of misbehaviour. It is only when there is a finding of sufficient evidence of alleged misbehaviour through the investigations that the question of removal from office arises in order to catalyse Article 225 into operation. It cannot be over-emphasised that Article 225 of the constitution is draconian in its effect and ought only to be activated upon sure foundations. After all, the persons who are to be affected by its operation are indeed high constitutional office holders whose offices enjoy security of tenure under the constitution.
It is patently obvious that the matter under review is only at the investigative stage. Therefore, Mr. Editor, your contention that Article 225 should have been triggered by the mere allegation made against the Police Commissioner, is precipitous, premature and violative of cardinal legal concepts such as natural justice, fairness and the presumption of innocence.
It is precisely the protection and preservation of these fundamental legal safeguards which, I believe, inspired my colleague, Mr. Neil Boston, to pen the letter published in Stabroek News on December 21, 2010.