Police and INDECOM can't both claim victory
THE EDITOR, Sir:
According to lead attorney Jacqueline Samuels Brown, the ruling is a confirmation that the INDECOM Act does not give the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) the powers of arrest, and prosecution, of cops, contrary to INDECOM's argument. INDECOM'S remit is to investigate and make recommendations. However, INDECOM has maintained that, under Section 20 of the INDECOM Act , it has such powers.
Now, If the ruling by the appeal court is against INDECOM's argument, how in heaven's name could that ruling be seen as a resounding victory for the organisation, according to its commissioner, Terrence Williams. If that is so, what ruling would he have considered to be a resounding loss. I am a bit befuddled by the commissioner's comment, but nonetheless I take solace in knowing that I am not the only one who is desperately trying to fathom this piece of balderdash.
According to this newspaper, INDECOM's commissioner argued that the police oversight body never claimed that INDECOM, as a body, had the power to bring a charge against the police, which begs the question, what was this case between INDECOM and the Police Federation about?
For the case to have reached the court of appeal, it tells me that one of the parties was not satisfied with the ruling of the lower courts. Also, the case against Diah was quashed, not because he was not guilty of the charges proffered against him, but as a result of him being unlawfully arrested by INDECOM's investigators.
INDECOM's head has conceded that the judgment of the court has confirmed, and strengthened, the position of the oversight body. Respectfully, Mr Commissioner, may I ask, what position of that oversight body was that?