Choosing a police chief
UNLESS HE has changed his mind about serving a third term, Antony Anderson will step down as Jamaica’s police chief sometime in April.
Sadly, not only is there no serious public discussion of his possible successor, there is no obviously transparent process by which the decision will be made. No one knows who the candidates are, or are likely to be, the criteria for their selection, or what will be the mandate of the person who gets the job.
It is still not too late for this discussion to start, and for an interim mechanism to be put in place to ensure that the selection is open and fair – even if doing so may require asking Major General Anderson to stay on for a few months. In fact, civil society organisations, especially the Crime Oversight and Monitoring Committee (CMOC) – the group that monitors the implementation of undertakings of the national consensus on crime – should insist that the administration goes this route.
If the Government had kept to the timetable for completing the initiatives under the near four-yearold consensus agreement, a new law governing the management and control of the constabulary would have long been in place. And that legislation would have been expected to include a regime for appointing the commissioner of police, taking into account the interests of various stakeholders.
Unfortunately, like several other elements of the consensus document, the bill has lagged. It is not clear when it will be taken to Parliament.
ARBITRARY DECISION-MAKING
In the meantime, the appointment of the police commissioner is far too important and sensitive, especially in Jamaica’s low-trust political environment, for it to be subject to arbitrary decision-making – real and perceived – without the public knowing what the commissioner’s performance targets are, and how she or he will be held accountable for them. Which, unfortunately, was the case in 2021 when the Police Service Commission (PSC) declared the details of Major General Anderson’s contract to be off limits and implied that it should be trusted in determining whether he was meeting unknown deliverables.
Neither would it be sufficient for a mere declaration, even if it could be empirically proven to be so – that the present commissioner performed excellently – to be the basis for continuing the existing arrangement.
In that regard, until a new mechanism is fully debated and locked into the proposed Police Services Act, this newspaper proposes a selection process broadly based on the recommendations of a position paper, Service and Citizen Security: Transforming the JCF, that made the rounds in the PSC and the national security ministry six years ago.
That document recognised the inherent interest of the government, given its obligation to the security of the State and the well-being of citizens, of having a police chief in whom political leadership has confidence and trust, although not one who is politically pliable. Indeed, the old tendency for the internal politicisation of the constabulary, which remains a centralised paramilitary body that is easily mobilised, adds importance to the trust issue.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Further, with an eye on transformation, and given the high level of autonomy entrusted to the police commissioner, who has sole operational command and superintendence of the constabulary (the portfolio minister is in broad charge of policy), the person at the helm ought to be subject to clear and predictable processes of accountability.
Legally, police commissioners are appointed by the island’s governor general on the recommendation of the PSC. But it is widely known and accepted that the person who gets the job is someone who finds favour with the government of the day, which, of course, does not necessarily mean that it is not the best candidate who gets the job.
What the current regime, however, does is apply a fig leaf to the supposed ‘independence’ of the PSC and the distanced, hands-off of the prime minister in making these appointments. Which does not make for an honest debate about the skills that should be possessed by the police chief, the policy interests of the government, and whether the selectee can enjoy public confidence.
In that regard, The Gleaner generally embraces the proposal contained in the 2018 document, and an apparently recent update to it that would require the PSC to provide the prime minister with three ranked shortlisted candidates from which to make a choice. However, our view is that the political Opposition, while not allowed an open veto of the PSC’s shortlist, should be consulted on the process before the names become the commission’s settled choices.
Similar to what happens if a prime minister (PM) disagrees with the appointment of a permanent secretary, a mechanism can be designed for a second round, should none of the initially shortlisted persons find favour with the PM, and what should happen if he again objects at the next go-round.
The commissioner must be given specific performance targets and time frames within which they are to be delivered, and for which he or she should be held accountable, including scheduled half-yearly appearances before the appropriate parliamentary committee – and at other times if the circumstances demand. Those performance standards should include an operational plan prepared by the commissioner.
It should also be clear that the police commissioner is liable to be dismissed for major failures on the deliverables, unless there is a real case to be made for force majeure.