Guyanese ought not to be surprised by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Aubrey Norton’s criticisms of the appointment of Mr. Clifton Hicken to the Office of the Commissioner of Police. Upon the retirement of Mr. David Ramnarine, Mr. Hicken was the most senior member of the Guyana Police Force but was deliberately and capriciously sidelined by the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Government, which appointed two members of the Force to act in the Office of the Commissioner of Police, successively, both of whom were junior to Mr. Hicken. To date, Mr. Hicken remains the most senior member of the Guyana Police Force and, no doubt, is duly qualified to have been appointed Commissioner of Police.
The Coalition Government’s track record of constitutional violations disqualifies the People’s National Congress (PNC), the main Coalition partner, of any moral authority to lecture any one on constitutionality and the rule of law, in particular, as it relates to the appointment of Commissioner of Police. The last appointment they made to that Office was done on 31st July,
2020, the last day of their demission of Office and five months after they lost the March 2,
2020 General and Regional Elections. Worse yet, the appointment was made not by the President but by the Permanent Secretary of the then Ministry of Public Security. It is ironic that ‘no consultation’ is Mr. Norton’s cry now, but when that appointment was made, the then Leader of the Opposition was not even informed, moreover consulted.
For the public record, the Government maintains most resolutely that Mr. Clifton Hicken was lawfully appointed in accordance with the provisions of Article 211 of the Constitution of Guyana and in due compliance with the Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act, Cap. 27:12. Further, the Leader of the Opposition was duly consulted in the manner required by the letter and spirit of the Constitution in relation to that appointment.
Mr. Norton is free to take whatever kanunî recourse he deems necessary. It is appropriate that the Government reminds that it is not the first time that Mr. Norton will be challenging Mr. Hicken’s appointment. When 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 yasal challenge was dismissed by the High Court and he chose not to appeal that dismissal. Needless to say, any meşru challenge filed will be vigorously defended. DPI