Former public service head Reginald Dumas is still pursuing his lawsuit challenging composition of the Police Service Commission even though the two members who he felt were unqualified, may no longer be on the commission.
Lawyers representing Dumas stated his position as the lawsuit, filed after President Anthony Carmona made the appointments in 2013, came up for hearing for the first time since the Court of Appeal and Privy Council ruled in Dumas’ favour over a procedural issue which threatened to derail the case before it even started.
Attorney Elaine Greene informed presiding Judge Robin Mohammed that she had written to the State on Dumas’ behalf last year to seek information on the status of members Dr James Armstrong and Romar Achat-Saney and received “no substantive response”.
Greene submitted that notwithstanding the members’ current position, Dumas’ case should continue as it calls on the court to interpret the Constitution to determine the criteria for selection to the commission.
She said: “Whether these people are sitting, the issue as sought by the claimant still stands.”
Attorney representing the Office of the Attorney General confirmed that they had made similar inquiries from the commission and had no received an official response.
Mohammed set dates for the filing of submissions in the case and adjourned it to November 23.
Dumas filed the lawsuit, a constitutional motion in April 2013 after Carmona announced his nominations of Armstrong and Achat-Saney to the commission, which is tasked with the responsibility of appointing, dismissing, promoting and appraising the executive officers in the Police Service, including the Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners.
Dumas is asking the court to interpret Section 122(3) of the Constitution to determine if the nominations were lawful as the commission requires members who qualified and experienced in one of four disciplines: law, finance, sociology and management.
The President nominated Achat-Saney as a person who was qualified in the disciplines of law and sociology, and he nominated Dr Armstrong as a person who was qualified and experienced in the disciplines of management and finance. Dumas disagreed with their suitability.
State attorneys had initially asked Mohammed to strike out the lawsuit as they claimed the he was not allowed to bring it because he could not prove that his constitutional rights were directly affected by the appointments. Mohammed agreed.
However, the Court of Appeal disagreed as it held that Dumas had an arguable case on a matter of public importance and was not a busybody acting for a collateral purpose.
The local appeal court ruled that a judicial review claim would have been more appropriate lawsuit to seek the court’s interpretation and that Mohammed had the power to administratively convert the lawsuit to facilitate Dumas.
The State appealed the decision but it was upheld by the United Kingdom-based Privy Council, which ruled that citizens do have the right to approach the Court to seek an interpretation of the Constitution in the public interest, even though they were not directly affected.
Dumas is also being represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC.