At the top of the news, we showed you what ComPol Chester Williams had to say about the spike in violent crime in the Mesopotamia constituency. That press pow-wow gave us a chance to ask about Monday's Supreme Court judgment which Justice Westmin James handed down against him.
It's a resolution of one of the cases which the ComPol's Corporal Eldon Arzu, brought against him in 2019. Arzu's legal claim is that back in January of 2019, his slate won 4 seats in the elections for Police Association. His opponent, Inspector Jane Usher, won 3, and it was agreed that Arzu would serve as the Chairman. Arzu went on to claim that the Police Commissioner enforced an amendment that he made to the Police Association's constitution. That's the change, which came by way of a statutory instrument, declares that no Chairman can serve more than 2 terms in office at the Police Association.
Arzu's first chairmanship began in 2013, and he claimed that the Commissioner attempted to make the amendment retroactive, which meant that Arzu couldn't serve in 2019. Arzu's legal team tried their best to convince the sitting judge that the Commissioner did everything he could to block his leadership using the retroactivity of this amendment.
Well, in a carefully considered ruling, Justice James made a series of major findings against the ComPol.
In the written decision, the judge says, quote, "Having given careful consideration to the evidence of the Applicant and the Respondent. I find that there was a legitimate expectation that once the Applicant was Chairman of the Police Association that he would be assigned full time to the Association's office while retaining his salary and allowances from his substantive post... the Applicant, in this case, was wrongfully prevented from being assigned full time to the Association's office... I, therefore, find that the reposting was null and void and of no effect." End quote.
A major part of Arzu's legal campaign against the ComPol was that he displayed major bias against him.
Well, in the written decision, the judge says, quote, "It became very obvious to this Court that the relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent was not a good one and the Respondent clearly had some bad feelings towards the Applicant, to put it mildly... The Respondent's involvement in the Association's business and the Applicant's Chairmanship was not in the least appropriate. The Respondent went as far as telling the Association who not to appoint, writing to the banks of the Association to stop their finances, and allowing members of the Association to make disparaging remarks with implications of financial impropriety in a press conference... The Respondent went as far as to issue a memo to indicate that nothing done by the Applicant would be honored by the Department. The Respondent did not stop there he reassigned the Applicant with immediate effect not even properly consulting with the Applicant... It was clear to this Court that the Respondent (meaning the ComPol) let his ill feelings towards the Applicant cloud some of his judgment in this matter." End quote.
And so, the judge granted a series of orders against the Commissioner. In a zoom teleconference interview, Arzu's attorney explained the context to us this afternoon. Here's that conversation:
Nazira Myles - Attorney for Cpl. Arzu
"The decision we receive on Monday, May 10th, was claim 106 of 2019. As you are aware, we were seeking certain declarations and orders from the court, as it relates to Mr. Arzu's chairmanship of the Police Association from 2019 to 2020, as well as issues which arose from what the Commissioner called a reposting, but we were claiming it was an illegal and unlawful transfer. We were likewise claiming that those decisions be quashed, and the court ruled completely in the favor of Mr. Arzu, quashing the decision to repost him, on the basis that it was an unlawful transfer, and it did not comply with the policies that were in place. So, he is to be immediately reinstated to where he was originally posted, which is the Anti-Narcotics Unit. Likewise, there was a previous decision in this same claim of the preliminary issue that the SI did not have retrospective effect. So, he should have been able to as the chairman of the association in 2019, when he was elected."
Reporter
"What was Mr. Chester Williams' chief defense against the claims brought by your client?"
Nazira Myles
"Well, his main defense focused around the allegation that he acted at all times in compliance with the career management and transfer policy, which is the basis upon which he indicated that he had reposted Mr. Arzu, and that all times, he acted in the best interest of the police department, and that there was no bias or prejudice or prejudice against Mr. Arzu."
"Not allowing him to act a chairman and transferring him unlawfully did have certain consequences or actions by the Commissioner, being that he was not paid salaries for 2 months on the basis that he was not at the proper post, and then, his allowances were discontinued. He was transferred to a different branch, the compliance branch, than where he should have been, or he should have returned, once he was not allowed to act as chairman. So, it is those consequences or those actions that we will now enforce in seeking that he is paid the salaries which he did not receive, his allowances which were unlawfully discontinued, and as the judgment says, he's to take up his post back at the Anti-Narcotics Unit."
