The matter involving David West, Director of the Police Complaints Authority, former Minister of National Security, Gary Griffith and Former Attorney General, Anand Ramlogan has been debated in the media over the last few weeks.
In the context of that ongoing debate questions have been raised as to the revocation, by the President, of the appointment of West or the requirement for his resignation. After much deliberation, I have decided to proffer some general viewpoints on the subject with due regard to earlier views expressed.
The appointment of the Director of The Police Complaint Authority lies within the constitutional jurisdiction of the President of the Republic on the joint advice of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. This is prescribed under Section 6(1) of the Police Complaints Authority Act 2006. Section 6(2) of that Act provides that in the event the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition cannot agree on a joint advice, the President shall appoint the Director after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
The consultation so prescribed may influence the decision of the President. In this latter respect, the final decision on the appointment however, rests with the President.I
n accordance with the Act, the appointment of Mr. West would have been made either after the joint advice of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or the consultation so prescribed. Whether West should or might have informed the President prior to his appointment that he was a witness in a matter involving the Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition, and that he had submitted a witness statement to that effect, is, in my view, arguable.
Whether his status as a witness in that matter compromises his status as Director of the Police Complaints Authority is, in my view, also arguable.
What is not arguable, however, is that the then Attorney General, Anand Ramlogan was aware of the witness status of West prior to his appointment by the President, and as principal advisor to the Prime Minister might, or could have, so informed the Prime Minister prior to her joint advice or consultation with the President. It is not in the public domain that he so informed the Prime Minister or not.
What however is in the public domain is that West refused to compromise himself at the request of the then Attorney General to withdraw his witness statement in exchange for a favourable recommendation for his appointment to the office of Director of the Police Complaints Authority.
What also is in the public domain is that West reiterated that refusal after "enquiry", on behalf of the Attorney General, by the then Minister of National Security who had collateral responsibilities with Mr. West under the provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act 2006.
The integrity of West, his non susceptibility to the compromise of his position as Director of the Police Complaints Authority and his sense of civic duty are not in question in respect of that entire situation. These considerations must be paramount, in my view, with respect to his possible resignation. I could see no basis therefore for West to resign his position as Director of the Police Complaints Authority.
That entire situation however, as described, could have implications for our present witness system.Section 12 of the Police Complaints Authority Act 2006, empowers the President, in his own discretion, to revoke the appointment of the Director under certain conditions. There is no provision under the Act for the President to act on request by, or at the instance of either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.
On the issue of revocation of that appointment, the President is required to act in his own discretion. The matter, in my view, now rests with the President in the exercise of his powers.
Christopher R Thomas
Former chairman
Police Service Commission