Judicial review over Manning appointment stayed

THE Supreme Court yesterday stayed the hearing of a judicial review over the appointment of the Police Commissioner David Manning.
Justice Collin Makail granted stay to an appeal filed by Attorney-General Davis Steven under Section 19 reference seeking proper interpretation and clarification of commissioner’s position as departmental head.
The judicial review filed by former assistant commissioner of police, human resource, Sylvester Kalaut and former deputy commissioner, operations, Fred Yakasa sought to review Comm Manning’s appointment and was schedule for trial today.
It was stayed after Comm Manning’s lawyer McRonald Nale referred the issue of the commissioner’s position to the attorney-general.
The attorney-general filed section 19 reference in the Supreme Court to clarify the position of commissioner pending the review as Nale had argued that there was a misassumption by the two former senior officers when seeking leave for a review.
The issues were raised by Nale in a motion filed last week before Justice David Cannings.
However, it was dismissed for using the wrong mode to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
Justice Cannings informed Nale that the questions could be filed under section 19 reference to be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Both the former senior police officers claimed that Comm Manning lacked tertiary qualification which was one of the requirements for the position of the commissioner.
However, Nale argued that there was a misassumption by the former officers because it is the departmental head which needed tertiary qualification.
“Because everyone sees the commissioner also as the departmental head, we say he must have a tertiary qualification” Nale said.
Nale based his argument on a past Supreme Court finding that the establishment of the Department of Police and the creation of the office of the secretary of police were unconstitutional as the appointment procedure under Section 193 of the Constitution also applied to appointment of police commissioner.
Now the judicial review has to wait for the proper interpretation of the questions regarding the position of police commissioner as the departmental head.