–gov’t says, contends members of the Commission have been suspended
–Chief Justice struck out police promotion challenge
— Attorney-General clarifies that Chief Justice did not give legitimacy to the PSC promotion list
–points out that the PSC in the case argued that it has not made a final decision regarding promotions

ACTING Chief Justice, Roxane George S.C., on Monday, struck out the legal challenge brought by five senior police officers against the Police Service Commission (PSC) over the 2020 year-end police promotions.
Following the CJ’s ruling, the Government of Guyana through the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall S.C., issued a statement rejecting the PSC’s promotion list as “unlawful and illegal.”

It noted that in the circumstances, this purported list of promotions of members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) will be ignored since the PSC was suspended by His Excellency, Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali, on June 16.
Senior Superintendent Calvin Brutus, Superintendents Ravindra Stanley and Shivpersaud Manni Bacchus; Assistant Superintendent Shavon Jupiter and Inspector Prem Narine had approached the High Court for a declaration that the policy of the PSC not to promote or consider for promotion, ranks with disciplinary matters, is irrational and unlawful.
In handing down her ruling, the CJ noted that the circumstances that led to the applications before the court are most unfortunate.

“They do not augur well for the overall management and wellbeing of the GPF. The determination of these applications will not assuage what are clearly deep-seated feelings of distrust and mistrust in the higher echelon of the force.”
She noted that the application highlights a “poor and haphazard” system for dealing with disciplinary matters against police officers and the need for comprehensive regulations governing the disciplinary procedure and promotions respectively, including clarity on what infractions could affect such promotion.

The CJ, however, said that for the sake of good governance, a cordial relation is needed between the two bodies.
Among other things, she noted that the PSC did not act unlawful in considering the disciplinary matter and that the application before the court lacked sufficient evidence to grant the orders and declarations that were being sought by the senior officers.

“This decision will not benefit the GPF as what is disclosed on evidence clearly indicates discord among its officers… Further, it seems that while the announcement of those to be promoted was made, whether leaked or otherwise, the process has not been completed in terms of a formal release,” she added.
As such, the CJ recommended that the GPF and the commission address the fact that officers who are recommended for promotion and have disciplinary matters, must be dealt with the soonest by the commission.
“There will have to be reconciliation so that there are no losers, otherwise the GPF and the nation on a whole will lose. It is therefore unfortunate that this matter was not settled,” she said.

NON-RECOGNITION OF THE LIST
Nandlall, in his statement, made it clear that that the government will not accept or recognise the list of promotions that was announced by the PSC.
On June 16, the president, with the powers conferred upon him by the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, suspended the PSC.

“The said decision of the President can only be rescinded, revoked, set-aside or reversed by the President himself, or by a court of competent jurisdiction. No person, let alone a constitutional commission, will be allowed to become judge, jury and executioner in our constitutional democracy. The Rule of Law simply does not permit it,” Nandlall said.
“The attempt of the Police Service Commission, therefore, to countermand, disobey and disregard the President’s decision, not only amounts to an effrontery to the highest executive office in this land, but is simply absurd. If anyone had any doubts about the independence and rectitude of this grouping who constitute the Police Service Commission, those doubts should now be put to rest,” he added.

Further, the AG noted that it must be abundantly clear that the ruling in the case by the Chief Justice does not give legitimacy to the purported list of promotions issued by the PSC or any such list. In fact, one of the grounds that the PSC proffered in opposition to the case brought by Brutus is that ‘’the commission has not made a final decision regarding promotions.’’
Police officers, Dennis Stephen, Hugh Winter, Monica Washington, Edmond Cooper, Kurleigh Simon Stanton, and Phillip Azore were admitted as interested parties in the case by the CJ. The CJ had initially granted a temporary order stopping the PSC from making the annual promotions.
On January 12, 2020, the Attorney-General had disclosed to the court that based on preliminary discussions with Chairman of the PSC, retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Paul Slowe, the parties were on a “path to resolution.”
However, this proved futile since both sides failed to reach an amicable solution, which resulted in the High Court going ahead with the hearing of the matter.

BYPASSED
Brutus, in his legal documents, claims that he was bypassed for a promotion due to an ongoing investigation. Brutus believes the action by the commission was irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary, and unlawful.
The senior cop was asking the court to grant a declaration that the policy of the PSC not to promote or consider for promotion, officers with pending disciplinary matters before it, is unlawful.
He was also asking for a declaration that he is entitled to be promoted to the rank of assistant Commissioner of police. Further, he was seeking an Order of Certiorari quashing, nullifying and/or cancelling the decision of the PSC to deny him the appointment to the office of assistant commissioner of police.
He was also praying for an Order of Certiorari quashing, nullifying and/or cancelling the decision of the PSC to promote Cooper, Philip and Kurleigh Simon, who are all senior superintendents of police, to the office of assistant commissioner of police.

Lastly, he was asking the court to grant an Order of Mandamus compelling the commission to reconsider its decision not to promote him in accordance with law and his legitimate expectation. All these orders were rejected by the Chief Justice.
Five officers: Brutus, Wendell Blanhum, Ravindranauth Budhram, Errol Watts and Fazil Karimbaksh, had been recommended for promotion by the commissioner of police. However, the PSC had decided to promote Blanhum, Budhram, Watts, Cooper, Azore and Simon to the rank of assistant commissioner of police.

“It has been the practice of the commission not to promote police officers with pending disciplinary complaints, regardless of the nature or seriousness of such complaints. Trivial and unsubstantiated complaints have been accorded the same weight as grave or serious allegations of indiscipline in denying promotion to those against whom disciplinary complaints have been lodged with the commission,” Brutus’ court documents stated.

Brutus was appointed to the rank of senior superintendent in 2015. In October 2019, it was alleged by the deputy commissioner – administration, that Brutus had committed a breach of discipline. The commission appointed Assistant Commissioner, Royston Andires-Junor, to investigate that allegation.
A breach-of-discipline notice was not served on Brutus until October 2020. The investigation has not progressed beyond the issuance of the breach-of-discipline notice.
In keeping with its practice, the commission purportedly refused and/or failed to consider and/or denied Brutus’s promotion to the office of assistant commissioner of police, relying on the said allegation of indiscipline. “The allegation is frivolous. The applicant knows of no other reason why he was denied the promotion he was recommended for,” the document stated.

According to Brutus’ court documents, Cooper, Azore and Simon, who are being promoted outside of the recommendation of the commissioner of police, are under investigation for alleged disciplinary and/or criminal offences. The said officers were promoted to the rank of senior superintendent in the years 2016, 2017 and 2017 respectively, and were, therefore, junior to Brutus.