Acting Chief Justice Roxane George on Tuesday once again upheld the legality of Clifton Hicken’s appointment as Commissioner of Police, this time dismissing a challenge to his substantive appointment, after he passed the public service retirement age of 55.

Delivering her ruling in the High Court, the Chief Justice stated that neither the Constitution of Guyana nor the Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act contains any provision prohibiting the appointment of a Police Commissioner beyond the age of 55.

The legal challenge was brought by Troy Garraway, who was represented by attorney-at-law Dexter Todd. Garraway had argued that Hicken’s continued service, following his attainment of the mandatory retirement age in 2023, rendered the appointment unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice, however, disagreed, ruling in favour of the State and Hicken. In addition to upholding the legality of the appointment, the court ordered Garraway to pay $500,000 in costs $200,000 to the Attorney General’s Chambers and $300,000 to Hicken.

Hicken was first appointed to act as Police Commissioner by President Dr Irfaan Ali in March 2022. He was subsequently confirmed in the substantive position in December 2024.
The High Court, in several rulings issued by Chief Justice George, consistently found that Hicken’s acting and substantive appointments were lawful in the context of the prevailing constitutional and statutory provisions.

Back in 2022, then Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones filed a constitutional challenge, seeking to quash Hicken’s appointment as acting Commissioner of Police.
The argument centred on the claim that the President had not undertaken “meaningful consultation” with the Leader of the Opposition or the Chairperson of the Police Service Commission (PSC), as stipulated by the Constitution of Guyana.

Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George ruled that, given there was no Opposition Leader nor an active PSC when the appointment was made, the President acted out of necessity. The Court deemed Hicken’s appointment “lawful and reasonable” and dismissed the case, describing it as vexatious and an abuse of court process.

Another challenge by APNU/AFC executive Carol Smith-Joseph had also opposed the extension of Hicken’s acting appointment beyond the age of 55.
The claim argued that only a substantive, not acting, Commissioner could have their tenure extended beyond 55, and that Hicken, as an acting Commissioner, was not eligible for such an extension.

The Chief Justice rejected this argument, clarifying that references in the Constitution (Articles 211 and 232) and the Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act applied equally to acting and substantive appointments.

As such, the Court ruled that the President acted lawfully, and there was no requirement for further consultation

Leader of the Opposition Aubrey Norton had also raised objections to Hicken’s substantive appointment, on grounds of age and other alleged irregularities.
The President and the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall had argued, and the Court affirmed, that there is no bar to the appointment of a Commissioner of Police beyond the age of 55, as long as the President authorises an extension until age 60, and that meaningful consultation (not agreement) is required only when circumstances allow