John accuses PM of ignoring Constitution

Skerrit (left), John

Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit’s being accused of having again ignored the Constitution by failing to consult with Opposition Leader Hector John on the appointment of the country’s police chief.

John who made that allegation almost five years ago when Cyrille Carrette was appointed Police Commissioner, says Carrette’s departure has seen the prime minister giving the green light to Daniel Carbon to act in the post without engaging in the necessary consultation with the leader of the opposition.

DNO reported on Friday (July 6 2012) that outgoing police chief Carette received a directive from the prime minister on the matter.

“All I can tell you is that the prime minister called the chief and told him to hand over the duties of chief to Daniel Carbon from 4pm today (July 6 2012),” a high level source told DNO.

Opposition Leader John insists he was not properly consulted.

He has criticized PM Skerrit’s approach to the matter, labeling it disrespectful and in breach of the Constitution.

John has circulated a copy of the prime minister’s letter to him on the matter:

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com/Duravision Inc. All comments are approved by DominicaNewsOnline.com before they are posted. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • are abusive, profane or offensive
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are excessively long and off-message

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

120 Comments

  1. August 3, 2013

    It is appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy.
    I have read this post and if I could I want to suggest you some interesting
    things or advice. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article.

    I wish to read even more things about it!

  2. Joshua D.T. Drigo
    July 16, 2012

    Why are we all acting so suprised about the Opposition and their Leaders acting as they did, that is in reference to the appointment of the acting Police Chief. Maybe I missed the suprise. Even if the Prime Minister had gone to the home of Spags he would have found some way to not have a consultation and accuse the PM of the same thing just as the last time. That is the opposition style. No matter what, where, when or how they must turn anything and everything into a Political Negative. Real positive alternatives and true Nationalism is apparently forbidden in the UWP. No Political Party has EVER won an election with such brainless strategy. Spags, Eddo, Linton, Matt, Pestaina, Fountain and others, that will never work. Dominicans have spoken 18 times to 3 that they absolutely reject that style.

  3. bam bam
    July 11, 2012

    All that is Patrick John fault. He took us out of the British Empire to creat his own little empire – he failed and he has failed again, even in sports. He created this mess – 70,000 people who cannot interprete and implement their constitution on a simple matter of an appointment (temporary or permanent!).

  4. Anonymous
    July 11, 2012

    Consultation: One who advises another officially or professionally. Can you not advise by writing?

  5. patriot
    July 10, 2012

    I AM SORRY SPAGGIE BUT YOUR BARK HAVE NO BITE. GO GET YOURSELF SOME TEETH.

    • ROSEAU VALLEY
      July 10, 2012

      I am sorry unpatriotic, this is not about Sparks for me and many others who are genuinely concerned about the state of affairs of the country. This is not about supporting Labour and UWP. This is about the protection of our constitution. It is about supporting what is right, civil and democratic. If it requires more of us to bark, rant and rave, until we grow sharp teeth to stop this abuse of political power-then so be it. We shall continue to bark, rant and rave for a superior cause.

    • >>>>>>>>>>
      July 11, 2012

      Go get yourself some basic schooling,when you have done so you will understand the difference between ‘informing’ and ‘consulting’. I am sure Spaggs knows the difference. You and your God Skerrit don’t.
      After you have done that go to the Red Clinic on your knees, with hands stretched out for money to buy you a lunch.

  6. HUH
    July 10, 2012

    Here i was thinking that the man in the position right now is ACTING chief as opposed to confirmed Chief. Is it protocol to consult with the Opposition on appointing someone in the interim?

    What exactly is the disobedience of the Constitution – the non consultation on placing someone in an ACTING position?

    Why is there not much ado about the fact that it is alleged that the former Commissioner got his walking papers over the phone in a now for now manner? That’s what should be investigated, not the lack of opinion requested from the Opposition on an interim head of police.

    • Papa Dom
      July 10, 2012

      boy oh boy, what will it take for some people to inform themselves before making fools of themselves? the constitution mentions the word “act”

      • ROSEAU VALLEY
        July 10, 2012

        Ha! Ha! – After defending what is obviously an unconstitutional act or conduct with regard to the letter and more so the spirit of the Constitution, you have the guts to make reference to the Constitution in support of your point. Well, you know what, I concur with you. The Constitution does say “act” and so to it says “to consult prior”. You may take a pass in engaging in that lousy argument and interpretation of the meaning of what the letter of the constitutional provision to “consul” means. I have heard that senseless argument and have flushed it where it belongs.

  7. Halfbred
    July 10, 2012

    “Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” — Julius Caesar

  8. fact check
    July 10, 2012

    His disregard for the constitution is persistent with the actions of a dictator. He is not above the law, although he thinks he is, by simply giving a directive to hand over power to someone of his choice.

  9. SiangUK
    July 10, 2012

    The UWP have TWO opposition Leaders.

    Until UWP get their act together, they are in no position to dictate anything.

    • ................
      July 11, 2012

      You are just a Skerrit fool. One with no understanding. I support Spaggs 100%. This is a blaternt violation of the provision of constitution again. Hoping that one day this man will pay for all those things he is doing to this poor country.

    • dion
      July 11, 2012

      I am very surprised that Mr Hector John wants to be consulted by the same prime minister he said and claim to be illegal. These guys are losing their head or what. If you show desrespect expect it in return.

  10. DA_Lover
    July 10, 2012

    Why am I still pressure to see and read info about this . He should get a refund for his education, where ever he got it from

  11. Ray John
    July 10, 2012

    All the talk about who is right and wrong is not helping, most people are political in the comments.

    The Prime Minister did not appoint a chief of police, he appointed a person to act in that position until some one is chosen. In not consulting in doing so is not illigal.

    When he comes to appoint a person to the position of chief, he has to consult.

    • Legal MIND....
      July 10, 2012

      My friend, the particular provision of the Constitution which speaks to the requirement of “consultation” when such decisions are made is not narrow in its interpretation for its states clearly, unequivocally so, as follows: ” 92(1)The power to appoint a person to hold or act in the office of the Chief of Police…” That being stated and understanding that the Constitution of this country is the yardstick by which we should measure or guide our actions, the good PM erred in the manner in which he arrived at the person suitable to hold this office. He is obligated by the most supreme law of the land to “consult” with Mr. John in these matter and by that I mean ensue discussion and hear his views on the selction of the suitable individual. The letter perused and depicted herein does not in anyway indicate that there were any discussions prior to it being drafted. In my humble opinion it directs and informs rather than offer a welcome to engage discussions. This is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and wrong is wrong! I am a die hard Labourite but we must lead by example.

  12. Papa Dom
    July 10, 2012

    All you silly and super intelligent people have completely missed one very important point. The story is reporting that “DNO reported on Friday (July 6 2012) that outgoing police chief Carette received a directive from the prime minister on the matter. (“All I can tell you is that the prime minister called the chief and told him to hand over the duties of chief to Daniel Carbon from 4pm today (July 6 2012),” Who gave skerritt the authority to issue directive to carette on this matter? Is that the procedure for making appointments in the police/public service? As far as I know, having been a civil servant for over 20 yrs that is not the way things are done. The instruction should come from the police service commission or as in the instance case the president but not from skerritt. So never mind all the semantics and play on words or all the legal rationalisations, what this man child did is wrong. Further, it is my belief that this was done deliberately, the motive only skerrit knows. The question of a replacement for carette has been in the public domain for the longest time so it did not take him by surprise. There was enough time to think about things and hence no reason for the proper procedure not to be followed.

    • ROSEAU VALLEY
      July 10, 2012

      You know, some of us must appreciate the fact that the Constitution is a dynamic living document. It has its body and spirit, which in legal vocabulary is referred to as the “letter and spirit” of the law. Therefore, even assuming that one is correct in such a flawed and shallow interpretation of the letter of the Constitution, this argument ignores the living spirit in which the provisions of the Constitutions should be interpreted and applied in a true democracy. I, therefore, would suggest that we take that into account before being so sure of our defence of the obviously undemocratic, uncivilized, un-statesman-like, un-Prime Ministerial, discourteous and unconstitutional conduct of Mr. Skerrit in this matter

  13. Observer
    July 10, 2012

    I listened to the conversation Matt had with Hector John this morning on the HotSeat, and all I can say is hmhmh, John spoke with so much venom towards the PM, even if I am not a supporter, the manner in which Hector spoke in regards to the PM, if I was the PM, I would just disregards Hector. He said that the PM is out of place, rude etc, wow, so much for he Hector John to be a college grad. If the Opposition don’t change their guards, Skerrit will be there for a long time, cause if we have toh ave people like Hector in the forefront, Dominica, finibat.

    WHAT A COUNTRY.

    • Mr. Met Yo
      July 10, 2012

      what dominica missing again to be fini bat?

      lmao

    • Papa Dom
      July 10, 2012

      What venom are you talking about? have you ever commented on the venom spewed by skerritt towards the people of Dominica or the violence and disrespect directed towards the people of Dominica by tonie ?

    • Anonymous
      July 11, 2012

      @Observer. Your idiot is not Spaggs you would be disregarding it is the constitution.So you have a brain?

  14. ROSEAU VALLEY
    July 10, 2012

    In light of the fundamental importance of this matter, I wish to comment further on the constitutional consultative process. If Dominica had a voice, she would speak so boldly but in pain as I do today. All I can do in giving her voice through my writing, ranting and waving on DNO in disgust of the open abuse of her good name.

    I can no longer remain silent and allow the uninformed to corrupt my fair understanding of the spirit (if not the letter) of our Constitutional provisions. I must help to disabuse the minds of the ignorant and to warn that our PM and his Labour Party are on a dangerous frolic of their own, while some Dominicans adore his wan smile and pretty dimples. The time must be drawing nigh for the PM and his party to fold and disappear into the political wilderness.

    As a layperson without any knowledge of Constitutional law, I shall give way to Sir Brian and Mr. Astaphan to educate the public on the constitutional definition and/or expectation of the act of consultation. However, my ignorance of the law, will not allow me to remain silent, when the obvious challenges my commonsense and underdeveloped intellect.

    Consultation within the context of our Constitution has special meaning. The Constitutional right to consult is not a new concept. It has been defined and refined in many judicial decisions originating from the courts in India, Australia, Canada and even from Caribbean jurisdictions like Guyana and Trinidad. I dear say, if we are still debating the meaning of the word “consultation” in our constitution in 2011, it is because we have a Prime Minster who simply wishes to disregard the Constitution as he has repeatedly stated he will do and disrespect us as a people, while our President chills with his bottle of whisky. In that regard, our democracy has not yet matured and we may need constitutional reform to spell out precisely what we mean by the constitutional duty to consult.

    Among the principles emanating from the judgments of the Courts as they would be applied to the proper interpretation of Section 92 (i) of the Dominican Constitution are the following: The Party with the legal duty to initiate the consultation;
    a. Must respect and recognize the existing rights of the other party to be consulted;
    b. Must act honourably in its dealings where rights may be affected;
    c. Must not take unilaterally action or exploit the process to the detriment of the right and/or the legitimate expectation of the other party to be consulted;
    d. Must recognize that the scope and contents of the duty to consult depend on the strength of the claim and potential for impact. The stronger the claim and the greater the potential impact, the deeper the consultation must be. There is nothing more fundamental than the observation and protection of the supreme law of Dominica.

    e. Must acknowledge that the constitutional spirit of consultation is to reconcile the interests of the Parties. This would have required the need for a sincere effort on the part of our PM to listen, take into account, appreciate and understand the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition, without necessarily agreeing with him, but in order to assess the potential impact of the proposed decision to make the appointment of Mr. Carbon. Consultation, therefore envisions that time is allowed for reflection and where possible to consider how to accommodate the interest of the other party.
    Consultation, as required by the Constitution goes hand in hand with the principles of integrity, professionalism, honesty, maturity and good faith. To fulfill the duty to consult about a proposed action, the Party with the duty to consult must do so in good faith. Good faith consultation requires the Party with the duty to consult to inform of a proposal prior to taking of action. In that regard, one expected the PM to act honourably and in good faith in consulting with the Leader of Opposition on the appointment of the Acting Chief of police. The PM cannot cavalierly run roughshod over the leader of opposition, in violation of his constitutional right to be consulted prior to taking of the decision.

    I simply cannot accept the rationale of those who think that the PM has faithfully fulfilled his duty to consult the Leader of Opposition through the fundamentally flawed appointment of Mr. Carbon. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the PM made “reasonable efforts to inform and consult” at the appropriate level. The retirement of Mr. Carette was imminent. There was ample time to engage in constructive consultation at the highest level before the appointment of Mr. Carbon. Moreover, consultation is not merely an exercise in discussion. It is more than that. The interest of the opposition must be respectfully recognized.

    In fulfillment of his constitutional duty to consult the Leader of the Opposition about his proposed action, the PM must have demonstrated good faith. Good faith consultation would have required him to inform of a proposal prior to taking of action and giving consideration to the views of the Opposition Leader. Good faith consultation implies that the PM would have acted honourably and resisted his boyish tendencies to cavalierly run roughshod over the Leader of Opposition.

    It simply cannot be said that Mr. Skerrit faithfully fulfilled his duty to consult through this fundamentally flawed appointment of Mr. Carbon. It cannot be said that he made reasonable efforts to inform and consult in a timely manner and at the appropriate level.

    As stated above, I await (perhaps in vain) the legal explanation from our legal “luminaries” in shedding light on the legal aspect of this matter. However, in other to assist those who still believe that the PM has in fact engaged in proper consultation with the Leader of Opposition, I have consulted several authorities on the word and it would seem that there is almost a sense of natural justice in the conduct of consultation.

    Consultation: [Noun]: A discussion to gain information. Usually advice is given.
    Found on http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/glossary

    Consultation: [n] – a conference (usually with someone important) 2. [n] – a conference between two or more people to consider a particular question
    Found on http://www.webdictionary.co.uk/definitio

    Consultation: procedures for assessing public opinion about a plan or major development proposal, or in the case of a planning application, the means of obtaining the views of affected neighbours or others with an interest in the proposal. http://www.lawsonfairbank.co.uk/planning

    Consultation: audience noun a conference (usually with someone important); http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web

    Consultation: The act of consulting or conferring; deliberation of two or more persons on some matter, with a view to a make a decision.

    Consultation: a conference (usually with someone important), a conference between two or more people to consider a particular question and to make a decision, the act of referring

    Consultation: A conference between the counsel or attorneys engaged on the same side of a cause for the purpose of examining their case, arranging their proofs and removing any difficulties there may be in their way.
    Found on http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c292.htm

    Consultation: Meeting of two or more physicians or surgeons to evaluate the nature and progress of disease in a particular patient and to establish diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.
    Found on http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictio

    Consultation: One who advises another, officially or professionally: http://www.mtasolicitors.com/Resources/G

    Consultation: (1) the act of consulting; conference., (2) . a meeting for deliberation, discussion, or decision. http://dictionary.reference.com

    Consultation: the exchange of views and establishment of dialogue , Category: Law • a deliberation between two or more physicians concerning the diagnosis and the proper method of treatment in a case. http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/definition

    Consultation: as asking others for their views and involving them openly in decision-making. [A more strict legal definition, is where one party is mandated to “inform” another Party of a proposals, and to afford that Party a fair chance to respond; http://www.epaw.co.uk/EPT/glossary.html

    Now, although the constitutional duty to consult rests with the PM, the political, legal and constitutional embrace of the decision in finding genuine ways of working with the Opposition would be a victory for the State. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition has a duty to facilitate a productive consultation processes. The process of consultation does not at any time and in no way gives the Leader of the Opposition a veto power over the decision of the PM in advising the President.

    • PROF. WIKILEAKS
      July 10, 2012

      Keep talking, keep talking….Acting Police Commissioner

      A Commission of Inquiry was conducted on the leadership of Police Chief Blanchard during the 1995 to 2000 Rein and it resulted in the firing of the Police Chief and his deputies that resulted in significant monies (in the Millions)to be paid to these men sometime after 2000.

      Whats up with all this “politiking” in this small country of ours…

      Now back to some water melon enjoyment in the cool hills of Bawi

      Peace Out…will be back Roseau Valley to enjoy the Glo Chaud and Water Falls….lol

  15. DA4real
    July 9, 2012

    Without the necessary consultation, or not properly consulting is not equal to no consultation.  

    Consultation may be relative. I wonder if there was some verbal communication and Mr. John was not satisfied or perhaps the attached communication was an initiation to a consultation but without respect,
    Mr. John instead of responding, crushed the paper (shown by the way the paper looks),  did not respond and went to the media. A letter to Mr. John from PM Skerrit required a response to PM Skerrit from Mr. John not to the media.  That is where the disrespect is. A response would have perhaps continued the initiated consultation but how can the consultation continue if Mr. John did not know the right thing to do which was to be courteous and respond. Seeing problems without solution means you are the problem. So Mr. John you should have responded to sender the letter noting your satisfaction or disatisfaction with the advice of the Prime Minister to the President.

  16. TOE-KNEE ASSTER
    July 9, 2012

    No wonder he CONSULTED to with chavez in signing the eviction order to get USAID out and has not INFORMED ALL YOU.

    • dion
      July 11, 2012

      That I call Rum shop talk. You must be from Bawi or what?

  17. July 9, 2012

    at least you got informed so what you want again ?lunch at fort young or a drink by de bus stop?

  18. namich2008
    July 9, 2012

    I do not know why you all are blajaying about.

    The prime minister himself use the word “inform” multiple times in the letter he wrote. Never was the word “consult” ever used

    So read between the lines people.

  19. Looking in
    July 9, 2012

    Too much dam comess in that country

  20. ROSEAU VALLEY
    July 9, 2012

    I have read some of the comments below and I can only shake my head in shame and disgust at the way we have become as a people. We may have better roads, new schools an a stadium but as a people, it is regrettable how much Dominicans seem to have digressed intellectually over the years. At this juncture, I can only raise the following questions in response to the comments of bloggers like “Follower of Politics” and “Anonymous” below:

    1. Is your argument that the date of the letter is the date on which the constitutional requirement was allegedly satisfied, i.e., 5 July 2012? If so, what if the letter was dated 1 June 2012 and actually delivered to Mr John on 8 July 2012, what would be the date of the mandatory consultative process as per the requirement of Section 92 (1) the Constitution?

    2. Are you assuming that the date of the letter indicates the date on which it was actually served, posted, transmitted and received by the Leader of Opposition?

    3. How are you so sure that Mr Skerrit signed the letter on 5 July 2012? Furthermore, how are you so sure that Mr. John actually received the letter on 5 July 2012 prior to the appointment and not on 7 or 8 July 2012?

    4. Why do you think the letter specifically states “inform” as opposed to “consult” as required by the Constitution?

    5. Assuming that your obviously flawed analysis may be correct, is that the level and type of treatment that we are prepared to give to our Constitutional appointments in Dominica- consultation in writing on the day of appointment? Is that the lowest denominator standard that we are prepared to apply to our constitutional processes in Dominica? Are you so politically brain-washed to accept this foolishness and even defend it public?

    6. I note that the President has already advised the Leader of Opposition that if he unsatisfied with the process, he should take legal action. Well, we know where that is going and where it will end after 10 years of delay in our legal system.

    Let me ask you Dominicans, put aside all the legal technicalities of the dates and whether or not the Constitutional provision was properly and duly satisfied. Are we really prepared to allow the PM to play these silly, immature and arrogant games with our Constitution as if he is totally above the laws of Dominica-including the Constitution? Of Course, as a Labourite, you may be happy with the manner in which the appointment took place but let us assume that the Constitution called for “informing prior ” rather than “consulting prior ”, are you truly convinced that the issuance or receipt of a letter on the day of the actual appoint would be appropriate under the circumstances?

    7. Is this the way our democracy now works? Are you really, really, really and truly satisfied my fellow Dominicans, Labourites included?. If you are-then give me a thumb down- I rest my case.

    • A concern citizen
      July 10, 2012

      Great Comment, very clear. It seems that Dominicans intellectual has been blinded by politics. What a shame.

  21. Looking in
    July 9, 2012

    It happens time and time again…..eh las, when Dominicans cya take it again,,,,they will react.

  22. July 9, 2012

    Mr. John claimed that this dictatorial attitude of Skerrit has happened on three occasions. In American baseball, after three strikes you are out,but in Dominica after three political strikes you stay in,what a country.I understood that the President of Dominica is a top ranking legal eagle,are you telling me,he doesn’t know the about the constitution or is it a partisan situation we have before us.

  23. ~
    July 9, 2012

    Here is what The Commonwealth of Dominica Constitution Order 1978 states.

    (Appointment, etc., of police officers.

    92.- (1) The power to appoint a person to hold or act inthe office of Chief of Police or Deputy Chief of Police and, subject to the provisions of section 93 of this Cosntitution, the power to remove the Chief of Police or Deputy Chief of Police from office shall vest in the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, given after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Police Service Commission.)

    The link as follows: http://www.da-academy.org/DA_Constitution.html

    In his letter to Hon. John, the PM wrote “I wish to inform you that – I shall advise His Excellency …….”

    A legal definition of shall is as follows: – The word ‘shall’ is used to qualify an action which is mandatory but can be construed as required considering the situation , circumstances and wordings used to express such action.

    You can check this link – http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/shall.htm

    So Hon. John is right in saying that he was not properly consulted.

    I also think that based on the legal explanation of shall, one can infer that the PM initiated or sort to initiate a discussion by way of his letter sent to Hon. John.

    So both points of view can pass, however, because of the nature and importance of the job my take on this is that the PM should have gone a bit further and do a bit more consultation with Hon. John.

  24. Anonymous
    July 9, 2012

    Hector pls…not that again…a precedent has already been established…u or whoever is the Opposition Leader before u r informed/consulted by a letter…its not to say u or anyone else as the Opposition Leader can change the PM whoever it may be at the time – mind…u were informed…notwithstanding i think we should get a Mr Rae Harris to settle this matter once and for all…

    • July 9, 2012

      You a so d — stupid for a human being for goodness sake why dont you have a bit of common sense so you can be around others cant you read for yourself why people like you cant understand it haven got to do with any politicial party on the Island it only have to do with The Commonwealth of Dominica Constitution and what it means to the developing of our ISLAND just take our the bean in your eyes and read the document for yourself for once in you so call life, and you will understand that all of as DFOMINICANS deseves respect regardless who is in charge I am sick of the stupid comments without facts attached to them that is been posted and we talk about the Younge people they have more going for them by not listening to folks like you.
      READ READ READ and you will be inlighten.

  25. July 9, 2012

    its time we go one party state because these men stand to low in the house offparlament to much controversy it needs to end BIG MEN COMMON

    • Malgraysa
      July 10, 2012

      If you want one-party state, immigrate to China. See if they will have you!

  26. My thoughts
    July 9, 2012

    Appointment, etc., of police officers.
    92.-

    The power to appoint a person to hold or act in the office of Chief of Police or Deputy Chief of Police and, subject to the provisions of section 93 of this Constitution, the power to remove the Chief of Police or Deputy Chief of Police from office shall vest in the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, given after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Police Service Commission.
    The power to appoint persons to hold or act in offices in the Police Force below the rank of Deputy Chief of Police (including the power to Confirm appointments), and, subject to the provisions of section 93 of this Constitution, the power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power to remove such persons from office shall vest in the Police Service Commission.
    The Police Service Commissions may, by directions in writing and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, delegate any of its powers under subsection (2) of this section in respect of officers below the rank of sergeant or of persons holding or acting in those offices to any one or more members of the Commission or, with the consent of the Prime Minister, to the Chief of Police or any other officer of the Police Force.
    A police officer shall not be removed from office or subjected to any other punishment under this section on the grounds of any act done or omitted by him in the exercise of any judicial function conferred on him unless the Judicial and Legal Services Commission concurs therein.

  27. Political Observer
    July 9, 2012

    The biggest probelm is the opposition itself. I am not a supporter of either political parties, but after the opposition stayed out of the house for more than a year, they lost all political respect allowing the pm to get an upper edge.

    • --------------------
      July 9, 2012

      Your comment is nonsensical. It all has to do with the disrespect that the PM has for our constitution. Nothing else.
      One day this must come to an end. In which other country can this madness happen?

    • ~
      July 9, 2012

      @Political Observer, I agree with you on this point and have always said so. You must have heard me utter these words.

      Another thing I say to a very selected few workers supporters is that your party’s strategy of criticizing for criticizing sake, continuously harping away on the PM’s corrupt practices, lamenting on voters ID cards, etc. that does not take them anywhere – derives no results – needs to be changed for another more effective one. So I am left to wonder if they get into office and the strategy they use to advance the country does not bear fruit, would they have the capability and foresight to realize this so a change of strategy can be made in order to effectively fulfill their goal?

    • REAL TALK
      July 11, 2012

      opposition stayed”out” of House- 9m months
      Labour stayed out 18 months in the past….just for you information

  28. Real
    July 9, 2012

    Don’t people know dat how u act behave is how people respect u.if u acting like a vagrant who will respect u as a man but..exampl…is human nature dat why u got to act as a politician if u wann get d respect of one..

  29. CIA on the watch
    July 9, 2012

    DNO, As a UWP supporter does the Leader of the opposition expect the PM to call on him to assist in making a final decision to that appointment, it happened in Freedom days when the deceased Mike Douglas made the same point that he was not consulted when Blanchaed was appointed as commissioner, the Deceased Dame Eugenia Charles response was that “i consulted him as to who i was going to appoint”. She or the party made the decision and he was consulted,if Mr john becomes the leader of the country i dont think he would want to seat with his opponent to help him decide as to who he is going to appoint in such a position, let us please move on to deal with the real issues of good governance.

  30. I and I
    July 9, 2012

    Hector John is an embarassment.Is he trying to score political points?

    • ....................
      July 9, 2012

      Go and read what the constitution says. The constitution was not written by Hector John. When you are through go to the Red Clinic for money to buy an exercise book and a pencil and go to school. YOUR SOT!

  31. Mr. Met Yo
    July 9, 2012

    First of all Mr Editor, you need to add to this story, the section of the constitution that Mr. John is claiming that the PM disregarded.

    Secondly, Mr. Carette was not appointed 5 years ago, nor was Mr. John the Opposition 5 years ago.

    Good Afternoon

  32. warma
    July 9, 2012

    Not to make light of this but this continuing episode between the PM and Opposition leader reminds me of Bill Clinton. Notwithstanding the fact that it appears that the PM has absolutely no respect or regard for MP John, a result of what some might argue was a series of self-inflicted wounds by the MP (Facebook opposition leader rings a bell), my reference to Bill Clinton is this.

    Back in 1998, Clinton gave testimony to a grand jury investigating whether he lied to his top staff about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The contention was that when his top staff asked him whether he was having an affair with Ms Lewinsky, he told them “there is nothing going on between us”. Clinton, whose nickname was slick willy, in testifying before the grand jury, offered up this beauty of an answer to explain why what he told his staff was not a lie; — “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”….makes your head spin, huh. In other words, at the time he was asked the question by his staff, there was literally nothing going on between them – present tense…Ms Lewinsky wasn’t there when the question was asked, so in reality, at that specific point when they asked him, nothing was going on. That’s slick. Fast-forward to the PM and MP John. It depends on what the meaning of the word “consult” is. If “consult” means opening a dialog with the other party, be it verbal or otherwise, with a reasonable expectation that the individual would reply and thereby engage in a discussion, then the letter to MP John serves the purpose, sort-of. The PM can say that this was his attempt to consult with the opposition leader but he failed to reciprocate. Of course, this is all based on Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’ is” triangulation.

    I think the opposition leader is in a league that he’s ill-prepared to play in. He’s come to the fight with a pen knife while the PM is wielding a cutlass.

  33. Anonymous
    July 9, 2012

    Ha ha ha pappy show LMFO

  34. Pedro
    July 9, 2012

    Remember those words”No law no constitution”

  35. Down the drain
    July 9, 2012

    I agreed with the opposition up until I saw the letter. He did not appoint a Police Chief. The guy is gonna be ACTING Chief of Police. He has not been appointed to the post according to the letter.

    If he is supposed to consult for having someone act then everytime Carette went out of state and someone held on then he would have to consult also.

    I hope when he does the appointment he does consult though.

    • Papa Dom
      July 10, 2012

      Read what the relevant section of the constitution says
      “Appointment, etc., of police officers.
      92.-

      The power to appoint a person to hold or act in the office of Chief of Police or Deputy Chief of Police.”

      do you see the word “act” anywhere in there? why do you people seek out every opportunity to excuse skerritt’s behavoiur, will you ever find it in yourselves to admit when this guy does wrong?

  36. Truth
    July 9, 2012

    I think that the PM has sought to engage with the opposition leader on the matter but in does infact fall short of CONSULTING with the member as prescribed by the constitution. My comment should not be seen as political but merely to educate us on the subject. Reading the letter to Mr.John I must say that the PM has recognized Mr. John in his capacity of opposition leader despite the popular notion that he (Mr. John) is a norminal leader. I commend comrade Skerrit for recognizing Mr. John and ascribing a measure of worth and respect to his office.

    I must say however that this letter from PM Skerrit DOES NOT hold true to the spirit and letter of the constitution as far as he being mandated to CONSULT with the leader of the opposition on the matter.

    Permit me to refer to the following definitions of the term con·sult (a verb) as definined by an online dictionary source;

    1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from: “Consult your lawyer before signing the contract”

    2. to refer to for information: “Consult your dictionary for the spelling of the word”.

    3. to have regard for (a person’s interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans

    What PM Skerrit did in that letter of July 5th 2012 DOES NOT reflect any of the 3 levels of consultation as stated above. Therefore Mr. Skerrit’s approach is UNCONSTITUTIONAL not withstanding I respect the fact that Mr. Carbon has been selected for the post. Mr. Carbon has dignified himself as a police office of merit and is well suited for the job but the manner in which it was done is WRONG and is NOT in accordance with any section of the Commonwealth of Dominica constitution.

    • Jude Nicholas
      July 9, 2012

      The letter constitutes proper consultation before the event. Consultattion can take place by writing, email, text messages or face to face.

      When an Attorney General, Solicitor General or Director of Public Prosecution has to be appointed the Judicial and Legal Services Commission must first be consulted before the appointment take place. All that is done is a simillar letter is written to the Chairman. There has been no face to face consultation as Hon John is requesting.

      I believe there was consultation by writting. The letter was written two (2) days before the actual appointment. Hon John could simple write back and give his views.

      Again I state that there was proper and legal consultation

  37. This is nonsense
    July 9, 2012

    He does not need to consult on such matters. it would seem rude given the date the letter was written and when the actions go in effect but as Prime Minister he can’t appoint it is the duty of the President. If Mr John has an issue he could take it up with the President and offer his own candidate. Keep in mind Carbon will be acting till September and he is not yet appointed Chief of Police.

  38. Red-Antz
    July 9, 2012

    Who is Hector John again……..??

  39. Lawyer
    July 9, 2012

    To my knowledge of the constitution…mr John was inform on the matter. I think mr John likes attention. As I said to him in the past , must do some more reading on the constitution and what it entails.

  40. weezib
    July 9, 2012

    DNO, i wish you would do a little more thorough reporting and journalism as it relates to this story. At least inform us what the constitution states, i.e. inform or consult (i’m sure a copy of the Act is available) and provide a definition of the two terms to assist us, the people who comment, to give a more informed commentary…

    without more information, i can’t give the best opinion on the matter, sorry…

    i withhold all further comments… i apologize to my fanbase who come so often to read my comments…

    • DA4real
      July 9, 2012

      Come in if you know it is available you should find it yourself. Stop the dependency on others to educate yourself.

      • weezib
        July 10, 2012

        it is easier for the press to get a copy of it and explain it to the common man; what then is the role of the press then… just press release reporting?

  41. steve
    July 9, 2012

    Can someone please give the financial center and address…..

  42. FAIRNESS!!
    July 9, 2012

    You are showing a copy of a letter he sent you so what consultation you want again. Get work to do eh!!

  43. Jude Nicholas
    July 9, 2012

    The letter constitutes proper consultation before the event. Consultattion can take place by writing, email, text messages or face to face.

    When an Attorney General, Solicitor General or Director of Public Prosecution has to be appointed the Judicial and Legal Services Commission must first be consulted before the appointment take place. All that is done is a simillar letter is written to the Chairman. There has been no face to face consultation as Hon John is requesting.

    I believe there was consultation by writting. The letter was written two (2) days before the actual appointment. Hon John could simple write back and give his views.

    Again I state that there was proper and legal consultation.

  44. Not a herd follower
    July 9, 2012

    I believe the political opposition and all those who are patriotic defenders of the the Constitution and the rule of law should have a protest rally against this violation of the Prime Minister

  45. Malatete
    July 9, 2012

    Unfortunately, by bleating to the press Mr. John only confirms his impotency. Don’t get me wrong, nothing against the good man. He is decent and well meaning but must always operate in the shadow of Edison James, who, just like Roosevelt Skerrit can not tolerate anyone, who steals the limelight from him, real or imagined.
    All he had to do was to acknowledge Roosevelt Skerrit’s missive and say that he does not recognise this appointment as it did not follow the procededure as required by the constitution. He then should further advise the P.M. that he has informed his executive, party membership and the general public accordingly whilst always making himself availalble for proper consultations. No need for a long letter or debate. It could be just as brief as Skerrit’s note, and leave it at that. In my humble opinion that would have been the correct thing to do and afforded Mr. John more credit.

  46. Anonymous
    July 9, 2012

    According to the letter he informed you of the retirement of Mr. Carrette. In the third paragraph of the letter he said that he shall inform the President to appoint. The letter is dated the 5th July so by the 6th July you have responded stating whether you agree or disagree for the acting appointment of the new Chief. That is consultation by writing.

    • people voice
      July 9, 2012

      nonsense, thats informing, go to the dictionary and research the meaning of CONSULT please… it means, meet with to discuss, to discuss, to talk… to agree upon after discussion

    • Rose
      July 9, 2012

      couldn’t agree more

  47. July 9, 2012

    All the PM does is makes deals with communist countries,.. and at that nobody ever seems to have the clear details of what “he” agreed to, think about it, does he really believe in a democractic government? Time for some change…

  48. Shameless
    July 9, 2012

    All too often arrogance accompanies strength, but we must never assume that justice is on the side of the strong. The use of power must always be supported by constitutional guidelines set forth to protect our democratic rights.

    Skerrit, Dca is not your household so please respect the rules of behavior as outlined in our constitution. The words”consultation” and “informed” does NOT mean the same.

  49. watchdog
    July 9, 2012

    liverpool has lost all respect from those that do not get milk from the cow.he should advised the pm that this was irregular.he taught law and should knw better.come on liverpool get on the air and say why you approved.

    • iPhoner
      July 9, 2012

      I’m sure Liverpool has exceedingly more respect than those that have spent the last few years trying to turn Parliament into a circus.

  50. Sukie...Sukie
    July 9, 2012

    I am not one for politics, bit I agree with the opposition leader, Skerrit has to do things by the books he is not god…damnit… he cannot just appoint someone in position by just calling the Commissioner and telling him to hand over documents and keys to another person, that is not how a Prime Minster should run a country, there are other people to inform of your decision when it comes to things like that…

  51. lol
    July 9, 2012

    John had crush up the paper man. :mrgreen:

    • Dorival John
      July 9, 2012

      LMFAO…..maybe he was so angry he crushed it and threw it in the trash bin only to realize that it was of use to him somehow.

      Hehehehehe

      • lol
        July 9, 2012

        Was actually going to type the same thing lol.

        After he say, weh bonjay i might have to make this paper public. Or Eddo ask him , you lose your head man, boss how you can throw the letter lololol

      • July 9, 2012

        hahahaha he crush it and he throw it by the bridge….but de opposition leader ask him for it so he went looking.it got wet too wee!!! bonjay not a good thing Eddo take back his position in mister hand because Skerrit would tired have that like a damn pappy show

    • Jane
      July 9, 2012

      he did! hahaha

    • Reader
      July 9, 2012

      ROTFLMAO!!! :mrgreen:

    • bjr
      July 9, 2012

      yes!, he did

    • Anonymous
      July 9, 2012

      A typical childish reaction. Grievances should be dealt with in a statesman’s manner.

    • Peeping Tom
      July 9, 2012

      :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

  52. Legal interpretation
    July 9, 2012

    What exactly does the Constitution state: Is it ‘inform’ or ‘consult’. There is a distinct difference between the two words.

    • Sukie...Sukie
      July 9, 2012

      Legal, there is nothing to consult, he needs to INFORM the opposition leader, the Island Secretary and the People involved about his decision, not just call the commissioner and tell him to hand over keys…A Prime Minster for many years and that is the way he is doing things…come on!!

    • bjr
      July 9, 2012

      I DON’T KNOW

  53. Follower of Politics
    July 9, 2012

    Somehting is amiss here. The date on the letter suggests that there was some “consultation” even if at the very eleventh hour, perhaps not enough time for Spaggs to consult his party colleagues and of course to spill the matter out to the media before the date. In terms of such appointments before Mr. Skerrit’s time. What was the practice? e.g Did Mr. James when as prime Minister, discuss or consult with Rosie Douglas over the appointment of Simon Daroux as Polce Chief and Deputy Philbert Alfred(from Marigot) in a manner he is now asking? Or was Rosie Douglas simply informed of the appointment just days before it took effect? Talk of investing in LIAT. When WIBDECO bought over the banana business form GEEST did Mr. James consult Rosie Douglas or the people of Dominica before the deal was completed with GEEST and the IRISH Merchant Bank that loaned the money? . Or did Rosie and the people of Dominica get to know about the business after it was completed and in the case of Rosie, whilst on a transalantic flight back to Dominica? Talk of transparency. A wrong is a wrong irrespective.

    • tactical
      July 9, 2012

      And your point is??

      Are you saying it was done that way before so what is the big deal!! Now I understand why Dominica is in the mess it is in now….people like you are just so pathetic.

    • Anonymous
      July 9, 2012

      does the content of this letter imply any 11th hour consultation?

    • Disappointed
      July 9, 2012

      Follower of Politics, you clearly do not understand the isssues. The appointment of a Commissioner of Police is a constiutional matter. the purchase of Geest is a policy matter; it’s not in the Constitution. Rather, it (purchase of Geest like the ”investment” in LIAT) is within the policy decisionmaking province of the Govt.

    • Anonymous1
      July 9, 2012

      What gabbage is this u writing?

    • the eye
      July 9, 2012

      Why dont you go and ask Rossie if Edison consulted with him, And them come back and tell us…LOL…

    • Real
      July 9, 2012

      I love dat..to spill d matter in d media an make a wale’ wale’ .dem man not man u cya talk to as men,,u have to treat dem as street girls,,

  54. mouth of the south
    July 9, 2012

    why do people make deliberate fools of themselves… blogger Need to Know asked: “what is the proper way to be informed?”…. the law says the opposition leader has to be CONSULTED… not informed… do you and others know what it means to be consulted? why don’t u all google it while on the net…

    • DA
      July 9, 2012

      Mouth of South – after reading its seems there was consultation quote from article: “Opposition Leader John insists he was not properly consulted.” So maybe over the years the Consulting consist of a letter so it was accepted all the time.

      • profiler
        July 9, 2012

        Unless there was some other communication between, the leader of the opposition and the PM on this matter before the date of this letter, I think Mr. John has it wrong. This is not a question of not been properly consulted, Mr. John was not consulted, he was informed…..

  55. charlie
    July 9, 2012

    we want weekes

    • HUH
      July 9, 2012

      can u actually jump from inspector to chief …smh

  56. d
    July 9, 2012

    how again john he had to inform u hahahah invite u at his home feed u and the both of u take a drink so he could tell u ,you get a letter well sign wat u want again

    • o
      July 9, 2012

      The level of ignorance in some people is just baffling. Read all you Constitution people, read.

  57. Glen Beck
    July 9, 2012

    There is a difference between Consult and inform from this letter i see he was informed of the change not consulted.
    What is in the constitution, should the leather of opposition be consulted or informed?

  58. Dorival John
    July 9, 2012

    I read the constitution myself on this matter and yes it said the leader of the opposition must be consulted. But what is the level of consultation that is needed? Should the PM and the leader of the opposition discuss it over lunch? Should there be a meeting between the two?

    I definitely think ‘informing’ the leader of the opposition is not what the Constitution has in mind.

    Can anyone clarify this?

    • PAPA MET
      July 9, 2012

      I was just thinking the same thing. At least clarify to the masses what the proper consultation is. Because the general public is gonna think that a signed letter addressed to the opposition leader is enough. so atleast correct people. Because I 4 one think the letter the PM sent to hector was straight forward and too the point.

      • Anonymous
        July 9, 2012

        When you people bias nothing is wrong in all you eyes. Look up the meaning of inform and consult- you really don’t need someone to do that for you..There is a clear cut

    • iPhoner
      July 9, 2012

      Perhaps PM couldn’t find him or his people anywhere in Parliament!

  59. GOM
    July 9, 2012

    He is above the law, but that is just for a time.What do we expect from the ordinary citizen?
    Hope our youths are not modelling this “No law No Constitution can Stop Me attitude”

  60. NOTED
    July 9, 2012

    Stupes…………..Relax all you self

  61. Need to Know
    July 9, 2012

    So what is the proper way to be inform? Opposition leader please educate us. Tell us what he had to do? I do not know the correct procedure myself, so don’t just accuse, inform the people on the right way.

    • >>>>>>>
      July 9, 2012

      It’s ignorant people like you wearing your ignorance badge with pride that has Dominica in this mess that it is. Wonder if you know that Dominica is one of the poorest Caribbean countries! Wait for the leader of the opposition to tell you still.

    • D
      July 9, 2012

      Refer to Section 92.1 of the Constitution of Dominica for the proper procedure.

    • Anonymous
      July 9, 2012

      The letter served to inform and not consult.

  62. langloo
    July 9, 2012

    no law no constitution.. de man say it already

Post a Reply to My thoughts Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available