Editorial | Transparency on POA matter

This newspaper confesses to being somewhat perplexed about the basis for the purported removal of Wayne Cameron as president of the Police Officers Association (POA) by his boss, the Commissioner of Police Kevin Blake.

In that regard, The Gleaner urges Dr Blake to urgently provide the public with further and better particulars of the specific legal grounds for his action, lest it be perceived as irregular, high-handed or vindictive. And the matter becomes a source of tension and division in the police force that negatively impacts public trust in the organisation.

We, of course, appreciate that, with a declining crime rate, especially a 40 per cent drop in murders so far this year, Dr Blake, at this time, enjoys significant goodwill among Jamaicans, whose confidence in the constabulary has been on an upswing. Which is precisely why not only clarity matters, but an assurance that everything has been done in accordance with the law, the rules and in good faith. This too, so that the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) doesn’t find itself mired in a protracted legal battle or public relations nightmare.

The finer details of this issue – which is where the devil usually resides – remain fuzzy.

What has emerged so far from the Police High Command’s side of the ledger is the commissioner’s announcement on Monday declaring that Mr Cameron, a senior superintendent of police, has been removed as chairman of the POA and would “ no longer be granted audience with the High Command and is not permitted to represent the Jamaica Constabulary Force outside of official duties”.

Dr Blake directed that the POA select a temporary chairman, who would prepare for a special general meeting to elect a new head of the organisation.

He told the POA’s members, who range from deputy superintendents to deputy commissioners, that by his action he was “exercising his powers of superintendence” over the JCF.

GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT

Among Dr Blake’s public, but unspecific, complaints against SSP Cameron was a concern of “ alleged indiscipline and misconduct by the Chairman (that) may compromise the conduct of the POA, particularly at a time when the organisation is required to engage in highly technical salary and benefits negotiations with the Government”.

The JCF boss also pointed to an alleged failure of the association’s executive “to meet to conduct the business of the POA, as well as to convene a general meeting over several years”.

This newspaper takes no sides and draws no conclusions from the information that is so far in the public domain.

However, like all Jamaicans who have an interest in a disciplined, professional, well-run and efficient constabulary, we would appreciate a deeper interrogation of, and exploration into, the commissioner’s authority to intervene in the management of the POA as well as SSP Cameron’s thinly veiled suggestion that this may have been part of a tit-for-tat action because of his own grievance complaint against his boss.

We are surprised, too, that, if members and the executives of the POA were dissatisfied with SSP Cameron’s leadership, they left it to the commissioner to act, rather than themselves insisting that he behave in concert with his obligations and the constitution of the organisation. The members of the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file cops, has in the past moved to remove leaders who they believed had not acted in the best interests of the group. We are not clear what this would say about the people who are the senior leaders of the JCF or any alignments that the episode might infer.

BATTLE LINES DRAWN

Unlike the Police Federation, the POA isn’t specifically mentioned in Jamaica’s Constabulary Force Act, which allows the commissioner significant authority over how the Federation must conduct its business. Indeed, the POA is, on its face, a registered company limited by guarantee and established to pursue the interests of its members. It is, however, not clear when its formal incorporation was done or if the process has been completed.

Nonetheless, given the paramilitary structure of the JCF, the commissioner of police has substantial powers to direct the behaviour of members of the constabulary. SSP Cameron, though, has argued that, with respect to his purported removal as POA chairman, Dr Blake overstepped his boundary.

First, he explained, POA elections are held triennially at a conference of its members. The next of these, before Dr Blake’s intervention, was scheduled for November of this year. SSP Cameron, who was first elected in 2019 and re-elected in November 2022, stressed that the chairman is elected on the floor of the conference from among officers who offer themselves for the job. A minimum number of members, a quorum, has to be present for the election to be legitimate.

“I want to make it categorically clear that the commissioner of police has absolutely no authority to remove a POA chairman,” SSP Cameron told the radio station, Irie FM. “He has no such authority.”

SSP Cameron also claimed that while Dr Blake cited him for unprofessional conduct, the police commissioner apparently took action before forwarding his complaint to the Police Service Commission (PSC), the constitutional body with oversight of the JCF.

He added: “But this is against the background that I have written some concerns against the commissioner of police to the Police Service Commission. I have written a grievance against the police commissioner. I expect it to be heard. So the police commissioner has drawn battle lines, which I am well prepared for.”

The Gleaner is concerned about the potential hardening of positions on all sides.

The JCF has made some strides in recent years towards righting itself and rebuilding its credibility. It still has a significant way to go to becoming an institution in which Jamaicans readily repose their trust.

This newspaper hopes that the battle lines to which SSP Cameron referred doesn’t lead to a reversal of, or inability to advance, those gains.

That is why we look forward to transparency and clarity in this matter.