Editorial | The JCF’s trade union

Last week’s interdiction of Police Federation Chairman Rohan James for remarks his bosses believe could undermine the discipline of the force, raises questions about what protections ought legitimately to be expected by the leader of a trade union, albeit one whose members are part of a paramilitary organisation.

In that regard, however, the action against Corporal (Cpl) James is resolved – whether before an internal disciplinary tribunal or in the courts – the issue is worthy of robust debate, including a review of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) Act and, in the current circumstances, the sections covering the establishment and operation of the Police Federation.

To be clear, this newspaper is not often in concert with the federation, particularly with respect to its posture towards the widely held perception that the police force is deeply corrupt, and that its members often abuse their power and use excessive force against citizens. The federation on these questions mostly deflects, accusing people whose job is to hold police officers accountable for their actions of supporting criminals.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

That notwithstanding, we cherish freedom of speech and the right of workers in a free and democratic society to full representation, even as we appreciate the basis of the organisational discipline of an institution structured like the JCF. Which brings us back to Rohan James’ interdiction.

Like a long line of his predecessors who have made unflattering, discomfiting, or even overly political statements about the Police High Command, governments of the day, and institutions of the state, some by Cpl James might be considered downright rude.

The institutional memory of the JCF may not be sufficiently long to recall Inspector McBeth of the late 1970s, the ideologically bent chairman of the Police Federation who often railed against the government of the day.

But 2010 is not too long past for people to remember the stand-off between Bruce Golding’s administration and the United States when Jamaica stalled the extradition of the west Kingston strongman, Christopher Coke. At that time, the government was in a dispute with the Police Federation over salaries.

The federation’s then chairman, Raymond Wilson, said the following, “We are forced to contend with an employer, the Government of Jamaica, whose motive seems hell-bent on destroying the police force in an effort to steer the nation’s attention from their blatant political corruption and clear support for a criminal terrorist, under the cloak of party support, rather than being the government.”

In late 2019, with the current police commissioner, Major General Antony Anderson, still relatively new on the job, the federation’s chairman, Patrae Rowe, declared, “Commissioner Anderson has been handed some incompetent, inconsiderate and lazy subordinates who are aiding against his efforts.” He argued for some of the JCF’s top officers to be “retired in the public interest”.

It is against the back of this history that Corporal James, speaking at the funeral of a slain police officer, launched a broadside against the Police High Command, suggesting that it has been deficient in ensuring the payment of court-ordered overtime to cops.

“I also want to say to the high command and to our commissioner, God help you if the membership is not paid their overtime come this month,” he said. “I am tired of the abuse being meted out and believing that persons can call me to intimidate me.”

While in the past there have been rumblings about interdictions of federation chairmen, until now the threats have not been acted on to their ultimate conclusion.

That is not because the legislation which heavily postscribes the operations of the federation has changed.

It was the case that the JCF’s disciplinary provisions also applied to leaders of the federation “in like manner as they apply to him in his capacity as member of the force. Breach of discipline is high on the agenda.

Indeed, members of the JCF, unless they have the written consent of the commissioner, are precluded from publishing or communicating to anyone outside the constabulary, except to the minister or the Police Services Commission, information relating to the deliberations or decisions of any arm of the federation, or “any matters arising out of or concerning the duties of the federation”.

Outsiders, which presumably also means the press, should have the written consent of the police commissioner to attend meetings of the federation.

In light of Rohan James’ interdiction, it is not merely an academic or moot question whether these, and other rules, will now be rigorously enforced in an effort by Commissioner Anderson, a former head of the army, to tighten the paramilitary discipline of the constabulary. Which begs the questions of the status of legislation aimed at giving legal weight to the proposed conceptual transformation of the JCF from a police force to a police service, and what ought to be expected of the institution in that event.

That, on the face of it, suggests a greater level of public accountability and new approaches to discipline.

The debate around the new legislation must also consider a transformed, less-rigid Police Federation, including the latitude afforded to its leader. Under the new arrangement, perhaps the chairman should, for the duration of her/his tenure, be allowed leave from the job, paid in part by members, and freed to represent them without the tight constraints of internal disciplinary codes.