Last week’s article, “Too Many Cabinet Notes?” originated with a suggestion from a former finance minister.
While there were no dissenting voices, it generated more comments than other articles in the series.
Another cabinet minister, several administrations removed, raised some important issues regarding the Cabinet’s responsibility for operational failures. He was voicing his frustration that the Cabinet is blamed for every failure in the body politic.
Where does Cabinet responsibility end? Is the Cabinet responsible for matters other than policy? One of the most pressing items on the national agenda is crime. Violent crime matters to every citizen and can happen anywhere, anytime, as Minister Terrence Deyalsingh found out last week. What is the Cabinet’s responsibility regarding the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service?
This is important since the public blames the Government for the TTPS’s weak performance in operational matters such as poor crime detection rates, errant police officers, the number and frequency of derelict police vehicles, the condition of police stations, police response, murder rate, firearms, etc.
It is perhaps best to establish the legal framework that governs the relationship between the role of law enforcement and the duties and responsibilities of the Cabinet.
The Constitution is built on the doctrine of separation of powers to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in Chapter 1.
The Constitution Amendment Act 2006 S7 gives the Commissioner of Police “complete power to manage the police service and is required to ensure that the human financial and material resources available to the service are used in an efficient and effective manner.”
Therefore, neither the Cabinet nor a minister can “order” the Commissioner of Police, his deputies, or subordinates to perform a specific task. S123 of the Constitution gives the Police Service Commission (PSC) the power to appoint the commissioner.
The procedural law governing the selection of the Commissioner of Police and deputy is contained in orders made under the hand of the President and published in Legal Notices (LN) 101 and 102 of 2009. LN 101 relates to the selection criteria, and LN 102 establishes the process to appoint the Police Commissioner.
The PSC must first notify the House of Representatives through the president and can only appoint the COP after the House approves the nominee. The bottom line is that the Government of the day, through its majority, determines whether or not a particular candidate will get the job as Commissioner of Police. Previously, it was the Prime Minister who had the veto power over the appointment.
The Cabinet’s role then is only to propose the person to be appointed and for its members to vote in Parliament on the nomination. Similar provisions (not identical) exist for the appointment of serving officers in other branches of government, such as the judiciary, the public service, and the teaching service. The construction is similar and is meant to limit the direct power of the Cabinet. The Cabinet has no power over the Auditor General, as that office “… shall not be subject to the direction and control of any other person or authority” S116 (6). S75 of the Constitution is clear on the issue of responsibility.
It says “… There shall be a Cabinet for Trinidad and Tobago which shall have general direction and control of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament.” The phrase “general direction and control” is all-encompassing, giving the Cabinet wide responsibility. The term “general” gives latitude in what it should consider, while control indicates that it is meant to have power over matters subject to the law.
No constitutional document can anticipate every event or every possibility and will use language that cannot be as specific as a job description. Nor can it give key performance indicators.
Perhaps the constitutional experts will differ, but S 75’s phrasing suggests the common law doctrine of “inherent jurisdiction.” That means the Cabinet has the right to address any matter affecting the governance of the country unless there is a specific law that prevents it from so doing.
Cabinet is responsible to Parliament and must account for and justify its actions in Parliament. Every political manifesto enumerates matters that a political party considers a priority to be addressed when in office. These are performance promises by which it expects to be judged unbounded by any inherent constitutional restraints.
When in office, the Cabinet controls the State’s resources. It has the power to tax and spend through the Appropriation Bill (the budget), controls the legislative agenda, and approves the selection of the candidate for the commissioner’s job. The public concern is whether the Cabinet is doing everything it can to fulfil its responsibility and manifesto pledges to reduce crime.
Law and order are the bedrock of good governance and social stability. The public wants positive outcomes, not excuses, and expects its elected representatives to use every legitimate means to achieve results.
The public cannot control the commissioner, but it votes for the next government. The constant repetition of constitutional limitations by the National Security Minister and Cabinet is not merely a public relations gap. It is a sinkhole of public trust.
Mariano Browne is the Chief Executive Officer of the UWI Arthur Lok Jack Global School of Business.