CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
There have been three legal disputes between the former Commissioner of Police (CoP), Mr. Wendel Alexander, and the Police Service Commission.
Initially, the Commission suspended Mr. Alexander, who then challenged the decision in the High Court of Justice.
The Court quashed the suspension and ordered Mr. Alexander’s reinstatement as CoP, citing that the police disciplinary regulation used by the Commission did not apply to the Commissioner of Police.
Despite the court’s ruling, the Commission refused to reinstate Mr. Alexander and instead suspended him a second time using the same inapplicable regulation.
This prompted Mr. Alexander’s second judicial review proceeding. However, the Commission decided to terminate Mr. Alexander before the court could have completed the matter.
On June 29, 2020, Mr. Alexander brought a third matter before the court, alleging that the Police Service Commission had unlawfully terminated him and violated his constitutional rights.
Both the second suspension and the termination claim were before Justice Jan Drysdale. However, despite the second suspension claim being filed first, the court ruled on the termination.
On December 20, 2024, Justice Drysdale found that Mr. Alexander was rightfully terminated, dismissed his claim, and ordered that he pay costs to the Commission.
This decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeal and remains a live issue.
With Justice Drysdale’s ruling that Mr. Alexander was lawfully terminated, the Police Service Commission made an application for the court to dismiss the second suspension claim. ‘
However, the Judge refused the Commission’s application and ordered the Commission to pay costs to Mr. Alexander in the amount of $2000.
Justice Drysdale highlighted that the core of the second suspension “concerns the rule of law and the accountability of public authorities, particularly when wielding disciplinary powers over high-ranking constitutional office holders.”
The Judge also highlighted that the “fact that the High Court previously ruled these regulations inapplicable to an earlier suspension, yet appear to have been used again, may suggest a potential disregard for judicial authority.”
Finally, the judge went on to highlight the public interest in this case by saying, “The public has a significant stake in ensuring that any disciplinary action taken against the Respondent, such as the Respondent’s suspension, is lawful and carried out in good faith.
Any perception to the contrary could substantially erode public confidence in the police force and the broader governmental system.”
The matter will be set for trial during the September to December 2025 term as ordered by the Court.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
I would not and could not have ruled that the termination was unlawful because prior to that it appeared that the commission blatantly disregarded the court previous order by again unlawfully suspending the COP a second time, and any actions by the commission/government after that second violation would and must be considered as bad-faith and egregious conduct until that second suspension matter is heard.
Not only that, the second suspension already occurred, harms was suffered as a result of that unlawful conduct, so this bar any and all conduct after from being heard first. As that second wrongful conduct have barred the termination as a matter of equity.
This is happening under the AG Cutie Benjamin and ABLP. If they can do that to Attorney, Professor and COP Wendel Alexander (formerly Robinson) what on earth would they do to nobody like me and you?
I respectfully would prefer Wendel Robinson as a police Commissioner. I may not be able to give him advise as I do not think he likes to take advise but I think I would like to see him there for a bit longer.
I want soneone who will stand up to political pressure and do what is right, and also take my expert advise in policing, national security, criminology, victimology, victim advocacy and research.
What a conundrum.
Base on what I just read the second suspension looks like it’s well on its way of being ruled unlawful. AND if the court so rules, then how would the termination be lawful if it was premised on the second suspension?
I suppose the suspension should have been done first or jointly with termination since it was the same parties.
We are really living in interesting judicial times.
Not surprised he’s appealing
Honestly, just tired of all the back and forth. Settle it properly and move on.
Alexander clearly isn’t backing down. I want see what happens with the appeal.
Is this a form of double jeopardy? What are the safeguards for abusive behavior by the Government other than going to Court ?
We have a acting COP that was recommended by the Police Service Commission.
The Prime Minister makes the final decision.
Has it occured to the public that Gaston Browne is holding off to see how the Acting Commissioner conducts himself a a Gaston loyalist before he is given the final approval by The Prince Minister .
One thing is certain the Commission did not terminate or suspend Alexander. It was Wendell that was suspended and terminated.
Facts
It doesn’t take any legal minds to see the blatant disregard by the commission to the ruling of the court. So it’s shows that it’s a kangaroo court to turn around and rule in commissions favor on the matter of termination when the initial matter was not even settled.
I expect him to fight them right right up to the highest courts.
The commissioners are politically appointed, the judges are also politically appointed. So how can anyone trust the system. Especially when it comes to the poor and vulnerable.
Smh,
Antigua is not a real place!
You can’t make this stuff up??
This is like a live episode of Saturday night live.
Father up in heaven..
Help us please🙏🏽
Judges have a responsibility to interpret the laws.
They are not answerable to any one or group of persons.
Too often we read of judges decision and it appears that they are working on behalf of the government and have a responsibility to watch how government’s funds are spent.
That is not their business.
They have to rule according to the facts before them irrespective who has to open their purse.
So, when the judge rules on the second matter before her first then turns around and slams the Police Service Commission on the first matter one has to ask how does she operate.
Is she operating in reverse?
Hasn’t she just shot herself in her leg?
The judge blast the PSC for totally disregarding the court’s order and the law in the second matter after she had already ruled that the Commissioner was rightfully terminated.
No.
He could not have been.
You are now making it clear that the suspension which came before the termination was unlawfully and a blatant disregard for the court’s order.
However in an inexplicable turn you ruled on the termination before the suspension.
Make that make sense to me.
If they violated the rules, laws and court order how then can their actions be right and lawful after that?
Was she more concerned about the treasury than justice?
Madam Justice, no matter what your salary is safe.
So don’t make the Antigua State College law students look better than you.
If you had already ruled that the Commissioner was lawfully terminated how then can you say that he was unlawfully suspended and terminated.
Your logic is messed up.
Do you now see in hindsight that the order of your rulings are wrong.
Your interpretation of the law is warped.
The judiciary is independent .
Don’t try to please the political directorate.
Ah Mi Say So!!!!!!!
What seems to have alluded me in the first instance, is whether the suspension was with or, without cause. The article does not offer a reason for the suspension, and that leaves me wanting to ascertain the core reason behind the suspension. Without that fact, I cannot draw a reasonable conclusion whether the Commission overstep it’s mandatory statuary duty in the discharge of it’s purview. The concurrent suspensions with the rendering of the court judgment, leaves “hanging” the decision to currently summarily dismiss the case without prejudice. In my layman’s opinion, an apeal is in order.
I rate Mr. Robinson. You nar back dung. I would say stay where you are cuz your a good lawyer. But still fight with them in Court.
Comments are closed.