GOVERNMENT yesterday ‘nipped in the bud’ the erroneous notion being peddled in some sections of the media that it “participated, authorised or concurred” with promotions of Sergeant Narine Lall and Constable Mohanram Dulai – two police officers charged with criminal acts.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, made it pellucidly clear that “the Executive plays no part in the recruitment, promotion, appointment or discipline of members of the Guyana Police Force, other than the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner. Indeed, these are matters from which the Executive is specifically insulated by provisions of the Constitution and the Police Act.”

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Sergeant Lall and Constable Dulai were charged with torturing a 15-year-old boy, Twyon Thomas, in 2008 at the Leonora Police Station and were, consequently, the subject of an investigation that resulted in criminal charges being instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against them.

Sergeant Lall (regulation number 14526) and Constable Dulai (regulation number 19028) were charged by the Director of Public Prosecutions and during the pendency of the trial before the Magistrate’s Court, both Sergeant Lall and Constable Dulai were interdicted from duty. These charges were subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution. In the result, the interdictions were removed.
Also, a Constitutional Motion was subsequently filed by Thomas against the Attorney General in respect of the same case.
Thomas was arrested on the 27th October, 2009, in relation to an investigation of an alleged murder of Ramenauth Bisram, which had occurred sometime on or around the 26th October, 2009.
He alleged that he was taken to Leonora Police Station and he was allegedly tortured by Constable Dulai and Sergeant Lall.
The legal proceedings filed against the Attorney General, culminated in an award of damages, which was duly paid by the State.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Commissioner of Police have since promoted Sergeant Lall, regulation number 14526, and Constable Dulai, regulation number 19028, to the rank of Inspector and Corporal, respectively.
Given the controversy surrounding their service, the promotion of the two ranks has resulted in much public commentary.
NO ROLE BY THE EXECUTIVE
However, Minister Nandlall, in a statement yesterday, maintained that the Executive had “no part to play” in their promotions.
He said, “Article 212 (1) of the Constitution vests in the Police Service Commission the power to make appointments to any offices in the Police Force of or above the rank of Inspector, the power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power to remove such persons from office. Article 212 (2) resides similar powers in the Commissioner of Police in respect of officers in the Police Force below the rank of Inspector.”

The Police Service Commission consists of five members, namely the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and four other persons, nominated by the National Assembly, as stipulated by Article 210 of the Constitution.
“In the discharge of its functions, the Commission enjoys constitutionally enshrined independence and autonomy which is captured in the imperative language of Article 226 (1) ‘…in the exercise of its functions under this constitution, a Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority’,” the Attorney General said.
RATIONALE
Additionally, Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon, during his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing, on Wednesday, explained the rationale behind the Commission’s decision.
He said, “The understanding that has been provided to Cabinet, essentially, clarified the decision, which is that the PSC, having satisfied itself that the matter was concluded, and whatever recourse to the law, to departmental charges, had completed its course, and the two individuals were no longer subject to disciplinary or legal challenges for the torture charges that were laid against them.
“It is understood that the Commission acted from that perspective in addressing the otherwise, I would put, superb, adequate, functioning of these officers.”
Dr. Luncheon noted that the Commission felt that, all considered, there was no need to deny the two officers their promotions and, by extension, further impose disciplinary action against the two.
On that note, the Attorney General pointed out that the view of the Government expressed by Dr. Luncheon, related to the procedure, in respect of the promotions and was not a comment in respect of the merits or demerits of the promotions.
“In short, it was confined to the decision making process and not the decision,” Nandlall concluded.