Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: This time we welcome back to our program a gentleman who has guided us and given us very serious things to consider on many occasions. He joins us here this morning talking about crime. And one of the elements of the crime discussion is the commissioner of police, the police service commission.
What's their role? What do they do? How do they interact with the nation of their responsibilities? Welcome back to our program.
This time, the hat that he's wearing is former member of the police service commission. Let's say good morning and welcome to our guest. That is Attorney Martin George. Attorney, good morning to you. Welcome back to our program.
I'm not too sure what's going on here. Let's see if we can get this rectified. Atini Martin George, are you hearing us?
[00:01:09] Speaker A: Yes. Good morning to you, satish and good morning to your listeners. And Freedom 106.5 fm.
[00:01:15] Speaker B: It's nice to have you. This is a discussion I've been wanting to have with you for quite some time, ever since we had the entire whole embrogo with the commissioner of police, the one year extension and everything else.
But this morning, the hat that you're wearing is as a former member of the police service Commission, and there are a couple of things that we probably need to find out as a nation so we can have a more informed opinion of what's going on.
As a former member of the police service commission, I want you to walk us through the step or the steps that are taken for the police service commission to engage in the process of looking for a shortlist for commissioner of police. Is there a trigger that happens or does the police service Commission take it on its own volition or is it mandated? Somebody say, police service commission, it's time for us to start this process. How does it work?
[00:02:06] Speaker A: Right. So the thing is satish, it requires the trigger from the minister.
So, you know, the point is, while the police service commission, you know, has sometimes been blamed for tardiness, the reality is that they do require this trigger from the minister in order to get going with their new recruitment process.
[00:02:30] Speaker B: That's not it.
We were told by our minister of national security that the reason why they had to reappoint Ula Heyward Christopher for another year is because the police service commission would not have been able to get the job done in time. And he said, and it's reported widely, that they started this process in April. So from what you are saying to us, it would have been Fitzgerald Hines as minister who would have had to do something to start the process.
And from the way this thing is constructed, we are to infer that he only do that in April.
Is that what you're saying to us?
[00:03:12] Speaker A: No, no. The thing is, I don't know when he knew or what. When he. Nobody, I can't speak to that. The inference would tell you that it does require that.
And once that is done, then the ESC can begin to move forward.
[00:03:31] Speaker B: That's an important part of the discussion because we've issued numerous invitations to the minister of national security. We used to call this program before he was minister of national security, numerous times. All of a sudden he doesn't have the time to come and sit with us because I find that to be a matter that needs to be fleshed out because the police service Commission is now the whipping boy for us having to extend the term of UlA here with Christopher, when a whole.
[00:03:59] Speaker A: That's why yesterday you would realize I issued a call and I would repeat it on your illustrious program here. Satish. The police service Commission needs to stand up and come out and speak out, because the thing is, they are allowing government ministers to speak on their behalf and to be the mouthpiece for the police service commission. The police service Commission is supposed to be a constitutionally independent body which is appointed by the president after they go through the process in parliament. So therefore you are not supposed to have government ministers speaking on your behalf or representing, or maybe, I mean, I don't want to say misrepresented or maybe not representing your exact views. You know, I always try to prove my words nicely and carefully, but the fact of the matter is the silence of the police service commission, and this is very, very distressing. And what makes it worse, deceptive, is the fact that you have government ministers speaking to a report or a rating that apparently was given the commissioner, of which nobody else seems to know about it in public space or the public place, from the police service commission to say that they have issued a report, to say, look, they have assessed the commissioner and they have rated her to this level or that level. I have not seen anything. So how is it that you are telling me that government ministers are able to see that? They spoke to the police service commission and police service commission told them the rating was good and therefore upon which they reappointed her. I mean, it's absolute rubbish. Any reports such as that the police service commission is supposed to make public so that it can be held up to public scrutiny and examination. You are supposed to set out the parameters upon which you did the assessment. The timeframe for which you did the assessment, you know, the details of all the Indesia, what were the milestones that you gave her for accomplishment, what were the markers, you know, I mean, all these things are supposed to be part of your assessment.
[00:06:27] Speaker B: Yeah. So I, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you were a member of the police service commission, you, you did interviews, didn't you?
[00:06:36] Speaker A: Of course.
[00:06:37] Speaker B: So there's nothing barring. And the reason why I asked is because if you were able to do it as an attorney, you would understand the remit of the PSC and the limitations and everything else. So there's nothing at this point in time that is barring the police service commission from coming out and doing interviews and speaking, is there?
[00:06:56] Speaker A: There's absolutely nothing. And in fact, if you recall, when I was there under the chairmanship of then Mister Nizam Mohammed and some statements were made in parliament which appeared contrary to what we as a commission had discussed. I was the first one to stand up and speak out against it and say, no, that's not what we discussed. And that information that has been put out there is not accurate. And you know, I mean, that scenario led to the chairman actually being terminated.
[00:07:33] Speaker B: Yeah. So based with this information here, now, this morning, I'm going to ask the producers of the show to send an official, this commission, asking them to appear on the program.
And the reason why I say official is because sometimes when you make a phone call, it'll work. And you need to document some of these things. So we are going to, because the police service commission cannot, cannot hide behind this cloud of this cloak of secrecy. And as you say, allow the minister of national security to speak for them on a matter as is important as this one, as a former member, you also heard it.
[00:08:05] Speaker A: It's echoed by Mister Imber.
And he was then acting in the role of acting prime minister. So that made it even more egregious. Because the fact of the matter is that, I mean, you are speaking from the chair of the highest political office in the land.
[00:08:24] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:08:24] Speaker A: And you are saying that, look, who got information from the police service commission. That rating was good. So if it is that the police service Commission is providing this information to ministers either to understandly or in a cloak and dagger manner, we are saying that we, the members of the public, need to know, we need to see it. We need to see the report, we need to see your assessment. When was it done? For what time frame was it done? You know, who were the persons who conducted this assessment? Will other persons assess also? Because the thing is, their role is to assess the commissioner and the deputy commissioners. You know, so, I mean, there are so many questions and that's why I say we cannot let the police service Commission get away with this. They have to come out and they have to speak up and they have to answer. They cannot have ministers being a mouthpiece for them and they sit numb and dumb in silence.
[00:09:22] Speaker B: I tend to, well, I tend to, I agree with you and I've been saying that for quite some time that there are organizations that are supposed to be independent, but you question their impartiality based on things that happen and based on the people who are speaking for them and they not coming out on their own and putting forward their position. This one, this latest one with the extension of this police commissioner flies in the face of the integrity of the police service Commission for many reasons, and they are duty bound now to try to preserve their integrity by giving their side of the story. If, as you are saying, and I have no reason to doubt what you come on radio and lie, that the minister is the trigger, the position that has been espoused over and over again to this nation is that is the police service commission's fault. And because of their inaction and because they didn't do the job in time, the government did not have a choice but to reappoint. Allah here with Christopher, the prime minister said that again the last time he spoke to the media when he come back from wherever he went, that's the same position he, he put forward. And you are saying that is the minister of national security who kick starts the process. So we wait to see how that goes.
[00:10:34] Speaker A: I mean, Satish, I'm still being very careful to say that I don't know the timeline of events which occurred.
[00:10:42] Speaker B: Well, let's be, let's be rational in the analysis.
[00:10:46] Speaker A: When I was there as a member.
[00:10:48] Speaker B: Well, let's be rational in the, in, in the analysis. So nobody could say we're being unfair. This is, this is fair criticism here. One would expect that there's a stipulated time frame within which the minister saying a PCA, listen, we need to start the process and the PCA starting the process, not so.
[00:11:08] Speaker A: Well, one would imagine. So, yeah.
[00:11:10] Speaker B: So, so then it's, it's reasonable assume that the time frame within which if we are told that they start in April, I don't think the PCA is so lackadaisical that they could take a whole six months before they start that, that's just my analysis.
[00:11:25] Speaker A: I don't I don't know and I can't speak for this current police service.
[00:11:31] Speaker B: I understand.
And I understand you need to be cautious. I understand we need to give everybody the benefit of the doubt in a matter like thing. How important, in your opinion, how important is the selection of a police commissioner to crime fighting in this country?
[00:11:50] Speaker A: Hello?
[00:11:50] Speaker B: Yes, we're hearing, you know, right.
[00:11:53] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:11:54] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:11:55] Speaker A: I didn't hear the question.
[00:11:55] Speaker B: The question is, how important do you think it is to crime fighting to have a commissioner of police appointed?
[00:12:02] Speaker A: Well, the thing is, I mean, um, let's not over state or overemphasize the role of a permanent appointment. In other words, one could have simply put an acting commissioner in place, because when you have an acting commissioner, the acting commissioner has all the powers, duties and authority of the substantive office holder. So in other words, there's no power that you don't have, which the sitting commissioner has. So, you know, even if we had to go with an acting commissioner, because I heard that as another reason being proffered for the extension, you know, there was some, you know, excuse Blandish. You know, I think about the, you know, possibility of having to then appoint an acting commissioner. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an acting commissioner carrying out the role and function. Stephen Williams, I think, acted repeatedly for more than six, you know, extensions.
I mean, the reality is that as acting commissioner, you do have the full power and authority.
[00:13:19] Speaker B: Here's another question.
There are people who, because of the last situation with bliss, sip Assad and the maritalist and all those kinds of things, have questioned whether or not there is a level of political influence in the business of the police service commission. That is unacceptable given what we are seeing this time around.
What's your opinion?
[00:13:45] Speaker A: Well, and I think that's why it's incumbent for the police service commission to come out and clear the air and show the public that they are robustly independent and that they are not having secret meetings or secret dealings with ministers or secret communications with ministers, which the public is unaware of. In terms of something as important as a performance of the commissioner of police. That is not an exercise that is kept in secret or kept in the dark. The public needs to know because one of the key elements of that appraisal is public trust and confidence. So how can there be any public trust and confidence if basically you are operating in a manner that, you know, gives the impression that, look, this is a throat and dagger operation, you know, somebody picks up the phone and whispers, you know, um, how are you finding going? And, you know, then what whispers back, yeah, she doing good. And then you come out and. And say, well, I spoke to them and they said, she's good. So in other words, you know, I mean, we are being treated as tools, as in the field, because you are not treating us with that level of courtesy and respect, to say, well, look here in the court, this is the process we went through. This is the analysis we did. These are the criteria, these are benchmarks. We said, because if we look at what is available in the public, that is based upon the commissioners own, you know, targets that she said she has failed to meet, many of the targets that she announced in December 2022, she set a target for production of murders. Right. She said in six months she will make a 20% reduction. Instead, there was an. Then she set a target for reduction. Fatalities did not meet that target either.
The point is, what we, the public are seeing appears to be at divergence with whatever apparently was whispered in the air of the minister by the PSC. So that's why it is so important for the PSC to come out and show us their reports, show us their assessment. Let the public be the judge of what they are, assess. If it is that they assessed as good. We're not doubting or challenging their signings. You know, all we're saying is you need to provide transparency and accountability because they are funded with taxpayers money, so therefore they have that duty of accountability to the public.
[00:16:23] Speaker B: Is it normal for the police service commission to evaluate police commissioners?
[00:16:31] Speaker A: Yes, yes, yes. That's part of your role and function? That's part of your rule and function.
[00:16:35] Speaker B: And is it an annual thing, a six month thing? How often is it done?
[00:16:40] Speaker A: You do a six month and you do one year.
[00:16:43] Speaker B: Okay. Okay. So that's good information. It means that, yes, this report, the process is there for the report to be compiled, the process is there.
[00:16:54] Speaker A: And my point is, if it is that the process is there, and if it is that the report was done, then what is the challenge in putting it out to the public so that we can see and measure and assess? We are not idiots. We are able to read and understand English the same way you could read and understand it and tell the minister what you're finding. Let's have a look at it.
[00:17:19] Speaker B: Is the police service commission under the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act?
[00:17:27] Speaker A: I would imagine so, because we. While I was there, we had requests under Freedom of Information act. And, I mean, when we sought legal counsel, we were told certain aspects of the request we had to comply with.
[00:17:41] Speaker B: Well, if ever there was a request that I'd love to see.
It's a request for a copy of this report that was done on the commissioner of police that gave her this.
[00:17:53] Speaker A: Well, we are assuming there's a report.
[00:17:56] Speaker B: Well, I assume that filing that freedom of information request would bring all these things to the public's domain. Yeah.
Huh. That's.
[00:18:06] Speaker A: And you see, the speculation is not good, even for them as members of the. Because the point is, if it is, that they come out and say so, if it is no report, then also come up and say so. Rather you leaving it up to public speculation where, you know, and we are land of human rumor and, you know, talking back and why that when you click on force in a sensible, reasonable manner, you know, and, you know, either hold a press conference or if you are pressing findings upon which you have made your assessment, or if you did no assessment and say so.
[00:18:48] Speaker B: It'D be interesting to find out the composition of the police service commission at this point in time.
I admit I don't have that information offhand.
Normally we would know, you know, because the members of the police service commission would be doing the interviews and the public would be familiar with them. I'd have to try to see if I can get that information to find out who are the members that constitute.
[00:19:08] Speaker A: The last information I had was that it was under the chairmanship of former justice of appeal, very eminent Justice Judith Jones. But I don't know if she's still holding that position. But that's the last info I had.
I think one of the other members would have been Maxine atong.
I thought, I can't name the other members, but it's normally supposed to be like five members.
[00:19:43] Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's good information as well.
Attending that's. We've spoken a lot about this police service commission and all these other things. Let me just tap your brain a bit before we wrap up our interview on some of the other things that are taking place in Tobago. We were told about some kind of reshuffle at the ThA and whether or not that's going to bring better governance finances in that department. And also, Tobago is seeing some crime, the levels of which are not necessarily in keeping with what we think of when we think of Tobago, what's going from a business perspective, because Tobagoans are locking up earlier. You've had ten murders for the year and the crime statistics are going up and up and up. The business community would obviously have some concerns and would have some suggestions as well as how to treat with it. Tell us about it.
[00:20:40] Speaker A: Which has been peddled so many times, I even heard government ministers repeating this clap trap trying to suggest that, you know, well, you know, all these crimes are being committed by Trinidadians coming across.
Let's stop pretending. Let's stop fooling ourselves. Let's stop burying our heads in the sand.
Quite a lot of these crimes are being committed by homegrown Tobago bandits. That's the reality. You know, I mean, don't want to say that they may not be influenced, you know, or maybe take pattern after what they see happening in Trinidad. Or maybe they might have Trinidad counterparts, you know, who I guess maybe might be working alongside them. But some of the persons who you have actually seen charged and coming before the court are from Tobago. So where is this coming from that, you know, it's coming over to Tobago and they are the ones committing the crime. Come on, let's stop pretending. Because unless you wake up and smell the coffee and it is the reality that they are breathing and raising and through pestering and fostering their own bandits, they need to face that reality, admit that and then try to deal with the problem. But if you keep denying it, how could you even begin to deal with it?
[00:22:07] Speaker B: Yeah, and the suggestion that Tobago have it some kind of tha police forced to deal with the crime situation. What's your take?
[00:22:15] Speaker A: Well, the thing is, you see, um. There's nothing wrong with something if you are looking along the lines of the, like, for instance, municipal police, which, you know, the regional bodies have. But the thing is, you have to look in terms of where they are. Where are the reasons for that from a legal and legislative standpoint, because this is not the first time that idea has been raised. And I think it's the legality of it that has, you know, crushed the idea previously. So unless the legislation has changed, I think they may be facing, you know, legal hurdles in terms of the effectiveness of any such police force as they would like to think of it.
[00:23:05] Speaker B: Yeah, that's. We're gonna have to leave our interview this morning. Thank you for being with us. It's been a robust discussion this morning. We have a lot of very interesting elements came out. I want to thank you for being with us, as always.
[00:23:17] Speaker A: Always a pleasure. Satish. Have a good morning to you and your listeners.
[00:23:21] Speaker B: You as well. That's how we drop the caterings. On our interview with attorney Martin George.
[00:23:25] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
