Having filed its appeals challenging the President’s appointment of the acting Commissioner of Police and chairpersons of the Police Service and Integrity Commissions, the Opposition APNU+AFC is already calling on the Court of Appeal for swift hearings in both matters.
Filed just under a month ago and four days ago respectively, the opposition coalition has advanced that the issues to be resolved in the appeals “are of great urgency and public importance.”
Through notices of motion, the Opposition argues that the purport and impact of the Chief Justice’s decisions in both matters, amount to “grave and fundamental misconstruction” of constitutional principles.
Moreover, it says that the appellate court “has a duty to protect the integrity of the appeals so that they are not rendered nugatory before they are heard; while stressing what it describes are issues of “high constitutional importance” to be resolved.
Against this background, the APNU+AFC is asking the Court through it attorney Roysdale Forde SC, that both appeals be heard swiftly.
Both motions were filed earlier this week.
The Opposition’s contention is that acting Chief Justice Roxane George SC committed a number of errors in her ruling upholding the President’s appointment of Clifton Hicken to act as Commissioner of Police.
In its appeal filed in the name of its Chief Whip Christopher Jones, the Opposition has argued that the ruling “was against the weight of the evidence,” and describes it as “too grave to be left standing.”
It argues among other things that the Chief Justice erred in law when she held that the President was vested with the authority to make an acting appointment to the office of Commissioner of Police under Article 111 of the Constitution.
In her ruling, Justice George declared Hicken’s appointment by President Irfaan Ali to have been lawful which she said the Head of State was entitled to do in his own deliberate judgement, under Article 111.
Noting that there was no Opposition Leader at the time of the appointment, the Judge asserted there could likewise have been no consultation between the two political figureheads on making the appointment, as is required in Article 211 of the Constitution; as the Opposition has sought to argue.
Meanwhile, dissatisfied also with the ruling upholding the appointments to the two commissions, the APNU+AFC through Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton in whose name that action was filed; contends that the Judge “misinterpreted, misconstrued and misapplied” the “value and objective” of meaningful consultation as is required by the Constitution.
Arguing also that Justice George had committed a number of errors which it says led to her “misconceived” and “erroneous” finding validating those appointments, the coalition’s contention is that the Judge erred and misdirected herself in law when she found that the President did engage Norton, through the consultative process required for making the appointments.
It has been Norton’s strong contention that no reasons had been provided by Ali to substantiate why the particular persons were appointed; arguing that the answer “[they are] people of good standing in our society,” does not suffice.
Finding that the President had meaningfully consulted with Norton, the Chief Justice last month affirmed the appointments of the Chairpersons of both the Police Service Commission and the Integrity Commission.
Justice George validated Patrick Findlay’s appointment as Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Chandra Gajraj as Chair of the Integrity Commis-sion and also the members of this latter Commission— Dr. Kim Kyte-Thomas, Imaam Mohamed Ispahani Haniff, Pandit Hardesh Tewari and Reverend Wayne Bowman.
By way of a fixed date application (FDA), Norton had argued that Ali had made the appointments without first meaningfully consulting him as is required by Article 210 (1) (a) of the Constitution and Section 3 (4) of the Integrity Commission Act.
