Court Dismisses Application in Highly Contentious Matter between Wendel Alexander and the Police Service Commission

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.

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]