Nandlall: Nothing blocks Hicken’s appointment as Police Commissioner

Please see below full statement from Attorney General Anil Nandlall:

1. A question has arisen in the public domain which I feel compelled to address. It is whether ????????. ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????????, Acting Commissioner of Police, who is over 55 years old, is eligible to be appointed (substantively) to the Office of Commissioner of Police. Some commentators contend that he cannot.

2. It will be recalled that a legal challenge was brought at the behest of ????????. ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????, ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? against the appointment of ????????. ???????????????????????? to act in that position. The allegation was that ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????. ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? did not comply with the Constitution of Guyana in making that appointment.

3. In a detailed and reasoned Judgment, the learned Chief Justice dismissed that challenge and unequivocally affirm that the President acted lawfully and properly in appointing ????????. ???????????????????????? to act in the Office of Commissioner of Police.

4. ???????????????????????????? ???????????? (????) of the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? provides that the Commissioner of Police shall vacate office when he ‘???????????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????’.

5. Parliament has so prescribed in the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? (???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????) ????????????, ????????????. ????????:????????. ???????????????????????????? ???? of this Act provides that the retirement age of the Commissioner of Police is 55 years.

6. However and significantly, ???????????????????????????? ???? (????) authorises the President to permit the Commissioner of Police to continue in Office but not beyond age 60. The relevant parts of the section reads:
“2. ????????????…???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????? [????????????] … ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????????????-????????????????:
???????????????????????????????? ???????????????? –
(????) ???????????? ????????????????????????????????????, ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????????????-???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ????????????, ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????? 60 ????????????????????, ???????? ???????????? (???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ????????????????????????????????.”

7. By letter dated 21st July 2023, acting on the recommendation of the Police Service Commission, His Excellency granted ????????. ????????????????????????, whose 55th birthday was on the 22nd July 2023, “???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????.”

8. Undoubtedly, since his appointment to act in the Office of Commissioner of Police, ????????. ???????????????????????? has been and is the Officer in charge of superintending and commanding the Guyana Police Force. This indubitable state of affairs aligns with the Constitutional definition of Commissioner of Police: “???????????? ????????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????” [as per ???????????????????????????? ????????????].

9. ???????????????????????????? ???????????? (????) of the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? states:
“…???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????…???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????…”

10. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? and the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? (???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????) ???????????? and the relevant factual configuration under review, wherein lies the prohibition against the President appointing ????????. ???????????????????????? (substantively) to the post of Commissioner of Police? I conceive none.

11. To the contrary, the conjoint effect of the relevant provisions of the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? and the ???????????????????????????????????????????????? (???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????) ???????????? impel to the imminent potentiality of ????????. ???????????????????????? being appointed to that Office. The contention, therefore, that he cannot, is an affront to both common sense and law.