Attorney Selwyn Pieters in a Facebook post on Thursday night opined that the appointment of Clifton Hicken as Commissioner of Police was constitutional and any legal challenge would be futile.
Pieters said the appointment of Hicken and the five Deputy Commissioners of Police is compliant with Articles 211 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.
“It is likely, if challenged, the High Court would reject any claims that meaningful consultations did not take place,” Pieters wrote in a Facebook post.
Constitution ‘meticulously’ followed in appointment of Top Cop – President
As he made his points, Pieters referenced an earlier legal challenge mounted by Opposition Leader, Aubrey Norton wherein it was argued that there were not adequate consultations between the President and Opposition Leader, as prescribed by law.
That challenge was dismissed was Chief Justice (ag.) Roxane George SC.
He also pointed out other occurrences that would support Mr. Hicken’s appointment.
“The Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act, Cap. 27:12 will support the appointment assuming the Court finds a temporal link between the letter from the Executive President dated July 21, 2023, extending Hicken’s, prior to his 55th birthday which was on July 22, 2023,” he noted.
Pieters also reminded persons that in the case of Carol Joseph Smith v. Attorney General, delivered on 6 February 2024, the Chief Justice dismissed an application challenging Hicken’s appointment past age 55.
And in the case of Christopher Jones v. The Attorney General of Guyana and Clifton Hicken delivered on 11 August 2022 – was appealed but never perfected and/or litigated past the Chief Justice’s decision.
Any legal challenge to Hicken’s appointment will be defended- Gov’t
In a statement issued Thursday, the Government of Guyana any legal challenge filed would be “vigorously defended.”
And it noted, “hen Mr. Hicken was appointed to act in the Office of the Commission of Police, Mr. Norton challenged that acting appointment on the very ground that the President did not consult with the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Norton’s legal challenge was dismissed by the High Court and he chose not to appeal that dismissal.”
