LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THE PROMOTION OF POLICE OFFICERS in GRENADA

Recent pronouncements by the Minister of National Security, as well as the Press Secretary for the Prime Minister evoke great concern regarding the continued efficacy and professionalism of the Police Force.  
During a press conference the former hinted that "they" would be "promoting some hard working officers" while the latter underscored the right of the minister to be "involved" in the promotion process.
It is quite apparent that neither gentleman has cognisance of the legal framework within which the police force operates.  The fact that they have placed inaccurate information within the public domain is evidence enough to demonstrate that something more sinister is amiss.
Section 89 (1) of the Grenada constitution clearly articulates the process by which the Chief of Police/Commissioner of Police is appointed:

"..... the power to appoint a person to hold or act in the office of Chief of Police and the power to remove the Chief of Police from office shall vest in the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service...."

Sub sections 2, 3 & 4 articulate the process and authority by which other appointments within the police force occur.
In particular sub section 3 speaks to the authority of the Commissioner of Police to make certain appointments:
"....the power to appoint persons to hold or act in offices in the Police Force of or below the rank of Sergeant (including the power to confirm appointments).....shall vest in the Chief of Police."
This constitutional authority to confirm appointments up to a particular level is a significant responsibility in the context that approximately 90 % of the police force human resources fall within this spectrum.
Therefore the implication of who gets appointed and thus promoted within this range is directly linked to the professionalism, outputs and efficiency of the police force.
It is also instructive to understand that nowhere in the constitution does it recognise the authority of the Executive to peruse, cajole, or influence the outcome of appointments and thus promotion within this range, nor  any other appointment within the police force except that of Chief of Police.
It is therefore asinine for the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister to claim that the minister has a right as he euphemistically put it to be "involved" in the promotion process; the law does not grant his office that authority.

Statutes

To give effect to this constitutional mandate Volume IX  CAP 244 Police regulations section 9 clearly states the composition of the Promotions Selection Board; yet again no where does it recognise inputs or influence from the executive.
"The Promotions Selection Board shall consist of the Chief of Police, the Deputy Chief of Police and an Assistant Chief of Police"  
Volume VI, CAP 244 the Police Act, Section 7 sub section (1) articulates:
"There shall be a Chief of Police who shall have command and superintendence of the force ....."
The operative words there being superintendence, which is to direct or the act of directing; and command which is to exercise control and authority, or to direct with authority.  
This further reinforces the constitutional/ statutory operational independence of the Commissioner/Chief of Police to manage and direct the police force within the expected norms of good governance and management of this very important institution.

Convention/ Principles

The constitutional operational independence of police forces within democracies is a fundamental principle in the quest to ensure impartiality in the delivery of justice and to prevent the abuse of due process.
Unlike armies and defense forces which traditionally have been instruments of political will, police forces are instruments of the law.
It is the responsibility of the Commissioner/Chief of Police to ensure that the institution that he leads possesses the requisite human and material capacity to conduct its core business.
In this regard it is the Office of the Commissioner/Chief of Police that recommends, where appropriate, to the service commissions persons who he/she perceives warrant upward mobility as referenced against set criterions.  
The fact that correspondence passes through the 'ministry' is purely a matter of administrative processing, it is not for 'discussion', 'adjustment' nor 'inclusion' by the Executive.  
Police forces do have an administrative reporting relationship with the ministry within which they are placed, and it is entirely within the remit of the Executive to articulate policy and strategic direction.
This however should in no way impinge on the constitutional independence of the Office of the Chief of Police/Commissioner particularly on matters such as promotion and other aspects, like the placement of police stations, equipment procurement, transfers, investigations/inquiry et al.
While it was proper for the Executive to request of the Commissioner an explanation regarding the unfortunate mix up of anthems (PRC & ROC), it is improper for the Minister to select a commission to investigate the matter particularly when the investigating commission is made up of force members.   
A number of question also exists over the legal authority of the minister to convene a second commission.

(a). From which legal framework does the commission derive its executive authority?

(b). Can the commission compel witnesses and other persons of interest to appear before it?

(c). Can the commission ensure compliance/cooperation from the police force?

(d). Within the context of natural justice and the apportioning of liability, will the findings/report of the second commission carry the weight of law in determining punitive measures?

(e). Is this second commission purely for the purposes of political expediency, an attempt to denigrate the police force?

Implications

The implications of blatant political tampering within the police force are manifold.  
Firstly, as an institution, the police force would loose its credibility and therefore its legitimacy to operate because the perception would be that political cronies and not necessarily professional officers are "in charge".
There would be significant eroding of the professionalism of the police force because "appointments" are not referenced against meritocracy but against political allegiance who more often than not, are incompetent.   
The Office of the Commissioner/Chief of Police has diminished value within the psyche of institution and thus his/her effectiveness to govern is suboptimal.  
 The question that Mr. Collymore needs to answer is whether or not the Minister of National Security or the Prime Minister of Barbados or for that matter the Political Directorate of any other county that has similar governance construct,  becomes "involve" in the promotion and operational processes of respective police forces.
This move to select "nominees" for promotion, even down to the level of Corporals, by a member of the Executive is a clear attempt to utilise the police force for political purposes.    
This occurs "when a government or a political group behind it forces the police to execute the basic tasks of public safety maintenance and crime fighting primarily according to the interests and intentions of the ruling government or political clique".
It is well known that almost immediately after the last election senior police officers were called to the home of the Prime Minister for a meeting in which he accused the police force membership of engaging in actions to cause the ruling NNP regime to be displaced.  
It is alleged that he declared that "he felt stabbed in the back"; "what have I done to deserve this after all I have done for the force" and 'I have to be careful who I take a drink with now'.
Allegedly, he further declared that 'never again would he allow two motorcades to be held on the day before election, he is the incumbent and he should have first preference'.
Allegedly some of the 'actions' he accused the force of engaging were; agitating bus drivers so that they would vote against the government and attempting to 'scare away' voters from polling stations.
He did also speak about professionalism and impartiality but in the opinion of many this was an attachment to the main thrust of the meeting.  
This is the context within which this promotion/reorganisation move sits; it is to place the leadership of the police force into the hands of 'trustees' who will dance to a puppet master.
It is the need to control the police force so that the perceived indiscretions of the last elections do not occur again. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate state systems to satisfy a megalomaniac thirst.  

(The above was an Analysis from the main opposition National Democratic Congress)