Opposition’s challenge to Hicken’s appointment a “political” interference – AG

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, S.C., believes that the recent court proceedings filed against the appointment of acting Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken by the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Opposition is a clear case of political interference.
On Tuesday, Chief Justice Roxane George dismissed legal proceedings filed by APNU Executive, Carol Smith-Joseph, who had challenged President Dr Irfaan Ali’s decision to extend Hicken’s acting tenure in the Office of Police Commissioner.

During his weekly programme – Issues in the News, AG Nandlall said there seems to be a pattern of obsession by the APNU/AFC Opposition with Hicken.
“Why are politicians hounding public officers, and I believe that this is a clear case [of that playing out here]… Here, the challenge is not filed by an ordinary citizen of Guyana. This challenge was filed by an executive member of the PNC (People’s National Congress/Reform) – an executive member of the APNU/AFC Coalition.”
“When His Excellency [President Dr Irfaan Ali] appointed Mr Clifton Hicken to act as Commissioner of Police, there was a challenge filed. At that time, it was filed by Christopher Jones, an Executive Member of the PNC and a sitting Member of Parliament of the APNU/AFC Coalition… What is this apparent obsession by the Opposition with Clifton Hicken?” Nandlall questioned.
In that matter filed Jones, the Opposition Chief Whip had argued that Hicken’s appointment was illegal since there was no meaningful consultations with the Opposition Leader as stipulated in the Constitution. However, the like this recent matter, the High Court had similarly thrown out that challenge, upholding the State’s contention that the Office of Opposition Leader was vacant hence there was no one for the president to consult with. In her August 2022 decision, Chief Justice George had described that court challenge as “vexatious and an abuse of the court process”.
According to Nandlall, these legal proceedings all point to a case of political interference.
“It shows the inference or the attempt to interfere with public officers in the discharge of their functions,” he posited.

“Authoritarianism”
The Attorney General noted this is reflective of the “authoritarianism” of the Coalition regime. He reminded of former President David Granger being found guilty of violating the Constitution when the Court ruled, on two separate occasions, that he was interfering with the functions of the Police Service Commission and the Public Service Commission in the discharge of their respective functions when he instructed them to halt promotions of police officers and public servants, respectively.
“Again, you see the authoritarianism of the PNC-led APNU/AFC as they try now, out of office, to interfere with or carry out a vendetta against a public official whose functions are not political but in accordance with the Police Act and the Constitution of this country… Here, it is an opposition party in the National Assembly – a political opposition seeming to display some type of vendetta or obsession with removing a person performing the functions of Commissioner of Police,” the Legal Affairs Minister.
Moreover, AG Nandlall went onto outline that Hicken was even sidestepped by the APNU/AFC Coalition for the Top Cop post while they were in government despite him being the most senior officer in the Guyana Police Force (GPF) upon the retirement of former Police Commissioner, Seelall Persaud, in 2018. President Granger had appointed Leslie James as Top Cop along with four Deputy Commissioners excluding Hicken.
“Mr Clifton Hicken was the most senior member of the Guyana Police Force, yet, he was overlooked for appointment to act even as Deputy Commissioner of Police or act in the Office of Police Commissioner or substantively appointed as Police Commissioner. He was overlooked and ranks junior to him were elevated above him and given positions higher than Mr Hicken,” Nandlall contended.
The minister added, “Is it that because they think that Mr Hicken is doing a good job as a Commissioner of Police that they feel this urge to remove him?” only the tenure of a substantive Commissioner of Police could be extended, and that since Mr. Hicken was acting in the office of Commissioner of Police, the extension granted by His Excellency President Mohamed Irfaan Ali was unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires.”
Hicken was appointed by President Ali as acting Police Commissioner in March 2022.
However, on July 22, 2023, Hicken turned 55 years – the age of retirement in the Police Force. The following day, the President extended Hicken’s term in office based on the recommendation of the Police Service Commission under section 2(b) of the Constitution (Prescribed Matters) Act, Chapter 27:12 which reads:
In August 2023, however, Smith-Joseph challenged President Ali’s decision to extend Clifton Hicken’s tenure as acting Commissioner of Police indefinitely, claiming that this unlawful extra time in office prohibits the upward movement of ranks for no plausible reason.
She argued, in the legal filings, that only the tenure of a substantive Commissioner of Police could be extended, and that since Hicken was acting in the office of Commissioner of Police, the extension granted by the President was unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires.
In response, Attorney General Nandlall had dismissed questions raised about the extension of Hicken’s tenure in office, saying that there are no provisions in the Constitution to prevent such a move.
Provisions for a person to act in the office of the Police Commissioner are outlined under Article 211 (2) of the Constitution, and the provisions contained in Article 211 (1), shall apply to such an appointment as they apply to the appointment of a person to hold that office.
During his weekly programme, Nandlall contended that the Constitution does not draw any distinction between an acting Commissioner of Police or a substantively appointed Commissioner of Police. In fact, he pointed out that the process to appoint both an acting Police Commissioner as well as a substantive Police Commissioner is similar in that they both require meaningful consultations between the president and opposition leader. Similarly, the same set of powers are granted to the Top Cop, regardless if it’s an acting or substantive appointment. Even the removal process is the same for these two appointments hence the Attorney General questions why would an acting Police Commissioner not enjoy the same extension benefit as a substantive office holder. (G8)