Attorney General Anil Nandlall yesterday filed a Notice of Appeal seeking an order to set aside Justice Gino Persaud’s March 24 ruling, which stated that President Irfaan Ali acted unlawfully in the suspension of members of the former Police Service Commission (PSC).
Justice Persaud ruled in favour of former PSC chairman Paul Slowe, finding that President Ali had acted unlawfully and ultra vires of the Constitution in suspending Slowe and several commissioners. They had all been appointed under the David Granger-led administration.
Nandlall is seeking to have the “whole decision” of Justice Persaud set aside, arguing that the judge erred in finding that the suspension of the members by President Ali was in violation of the Constitution.
According to the notice, the appeal is to be filed on among other grounds that “the learned judge erred and misdirected himself in law” when he determined that “the expired Police Service Commission could lawfully continue to maintain legal proceedings…, and in so determining refused the appellants’ application to strike out the fixed date application.”
On May 19, 2021, Slowe had been charged with conspiracy to defraud. Prime Minister Mark Phillips then had a letter sent to him demanding that he show cause why he (the PM) should not advise the President that the question of his removal as chairman of the PSC be investigated. On May 31, 2021, Slowe submitted his response to the Prime Minister.
On June 1, 2021, show-cause notices were issued to members of the commission asking them to explain in writing why the Prime Minister should not advise the President to initiate investigations into their removal as members of the PSC. In a letter dated June 15, 2021, the Prime Minister advised the President that the question of removal of Slowe as chairman of the PSC should be investigated. In the last paragraph of that correspondence, the Prime Minister also advised that Slowe be suspended.
On June 16, 2021, by way of a letter, Slowe was suspended from his constitutional post by the President, who claimed to be acting pursuant to Article 210 (3) of the Constitution.
The other members of the PSC were also suspended. They then instituted proceedings against the President, the Commissioner of Police, the AG, and others. As a result of immunity, the President was subsequently removed from the proceedings but it was ruled that the case would proceed.
Slowe’s lawyer had argued in court that the suspension was ultra vires the Constitution and particularly Article 225. Justice Persaud noted that the Attorney General placed heavy reliance on the charges that were instituted against Slowe and another member of the PSC as justification for their suspension. The judge said the AG further contended that the power to suspend was the preserve of the President and because of the peculiar circumstances of the President’s power under Article 225 (6) could not be nullified by the absence of a duly constituted JSC.
“… Mr Slowe has not been convicted of any charges. At the time when he was suspended, he was entitled to that presumption. The mere institution of charges cannot amount to ‘misbehaviour’ proper except and until the person has been adjudged as guilty by a competent tribunal. Therefore, to act in reliance of charges cannot be a basis to justify the President’s unconstitutional conduct,” Justice Persaud had asserted.
