Appointment under review

By KARO JESSE
POLICE Commissioner David Manning’s appointment is now under a judicial review to assess its legality and alleged claims of procedural breaches.
This comes after the National Court yesterday granted leave to former assistant police commissioner (human resource) Sylvester Kalaut and former deputy police commissioner (operations) Fred Yakasa filed a joint application seeking leave for a judicial review of a decision by the National Executive Council (NEC) on Dec 6, 2019, which appointed Manning as commissioner.
Justice David Cannings when granting the review, was persuaded that, Kalaut and Yakasa had sufficient and genuine interest in the matter as they were both applicants shortlisted for the position.
Cannings further ruled that the former senior officers were long service members of the force and their intentions were not malicious as they were not mere bodies as claimed by the opposing lawyer.
Both applicants’ lawyer David Dotaona submitted that the Public Service Committee (PSC) failed to conduct a proper or valid merit-based appointment of three shortlisted applicants submitted to NEC which Manning and both applicants were shortlisted.
Dotaona contended that Manning, who was among the shortlisted applicants and eventually appointed as the commissioner, did not meet the minimum requirements of having a tertiary qualification.
Dotaona submitted that the appointment was in breach of the Public Service Management Regulations Act (minimum person specification and competency requirements for selection and appointment of departmental heads and provincial administrators).
The court was also told that Police Minister Bryan Kramer failed to submit a report of Manning’s appointment to Parliament which was a constitutional requirement.
Dotaona submitted that there was bias shown by Kramer in his participation in the process of the appointment of Manning as the commissioner.
Kalaut told The National that the ruling was significant because the office of the commissioner was a constitutional office and the proper appointment process needed to be followed.
“It’s not about the person occupying the office, it’s about the law and requirements,” Kalaut said.
State lawyer opposing the case claimed the appointment was duly made under the required laws and there were no procedural breaches.
The matter returns to court on May 28 for a directions hearing.