Dear  Editor,

I write to express serious public concern regarding the recent re-employment of a Police Inspector who was previously found guilty of misconduct by a police tribunal for conducting an unlawful investigation without the knowledge or authorisation of his superiors, including the Commissioner of Police.

Of even greater concern is the reported circumstance that this investigation was undertaken at the direction of a Cabinet Minister who does not hold responsibility for the Police portfolio. Such an action raises significant constitutional and legal questions about the proper exercise of authority and the independence of law enforcement.

Under the Police Service Act 2009, the Commissioner of Police is vested with the exclusive authority to control and direct police operations. This reflects a fundamental principle of policing in democratic societies: that operational decisions must remain free from political interference. Any deviation from this chain of command is not merely a procedural lapse; it is a direct challenge to the rule of law.

Furthermore, the Public Service Act 2004 reinforces the obligation of all public servants to act within the scope of their lawful authority and to uphold the highest standards of integrity, accountability and professionalism. Conduct that bypasses established authority structures, particularly when influenced by external political actors, is inconsistent with these statutory obligations.

It is important to distinguish between criminal liability and disciplinary accountability. While the Inspector may have been acquitted of criminal charges before the court, the findings of the police tribunal arrived at after a full consideration of the evidence clearly established breaches of internal procedures and professional standards. These findings cannot and should not be disregarded.

The rule of law depends not only on the outcome of criminal proceedings but also on adherence to institutional discipline and governance. When a police officer investigates lawful authority, particularly at the behest of a political figure without jurisdiction, it erodes public trust and blurs the critical separation between politics and policing.

Equally concerning is the recent decision of the District Court, which, while addressing elements of the case, did not directly engage with the issue of unauthorised political direction. The absence of judicial scrutiny on this point leaves a troubling gap in accountability and risks setting a precedent that may embolden similar conduct in the future.

If such matters are left unexamined, we risk normalising a dangerous practice whereby individual officers may feel justified in bypassing lawful authority based on informal or politically motivated instructions. This undermines institutional discipline, weakens governance frameworks and threatens the fundamental principle that no person, regardless of position, is above the law.

In light of these concerns, this matter must be revisited, whether through further judicial clarification, parliamentary oversight, or an independent inquiry. The public deserves clear assurance that law enforcement operates strictly within the law, guided by transparency, accountability and independence from improper external influence and political interference.

Yours sincerely,

Concerned Citizen