Immigration officer fights suspension from PICA
Published:Thursday | August 24, 2023 | 5:28 PM
An immigration officer has sought the intervention of the court to quash a year-long suspension imposed by his employer, the Passport Immigration and Citizenship Agency (PICA), arguing that it is “illegal, null and void and of no effect”.
Lawyers representing Kenton Senior, a 44-year-old officer assigned within the extension-of-stay unit at the executive agency, filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review in the Civil Division of the Supreme Court on Monday.
PICA’s Director of Human Resources, Joan Guy-Walker, is listed as the sole respondent.
Efforts by The Gleaner to reach Guy-Walker for comment on Wednesday were unsuccessful.
Andrew Wynter, PICA’s chief executive officer, declined comment when contacted, noting that he was travelling.
Senior, in a sworn affidavit, said in July 2022 that he was “summoned” to the HR director’s office, where he was shown a document and instructed to read it.
He said that he refused to read the document and instead insisted that he be told what it was about.
He said he was then told that he was being placed on interdiction.
Senior said no reason was given for the course of action.
He said he left the office and proceeded to seek legal advice.
The affidavit, filed by attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, said Senior showed up to work the following day but was “declined” entry to the building.
A colleague assisted him to gain entry, Senior said in the affidavit.
He said he resumed work but was again summoned by Guy-Walker, who again showed him a document, which he refused to read.
He said he was told that it was a continuation of his interdiction served the previous day.
The documents shown to him were subsequently posted, he said, and his salary was cut to 75 per cent.
Additional charges
He said that a year later, in July 2023, he was further furnished with a document from Guy-Walker, outlining additional charges.
Senior, in his affidavit, said he was not aware of the charges or the factual circumstances that gave rise to them.
Five charges were laid against the immigration officer according to documents seen by The Gleaner.
He was charged with gross misconduct in issuing a threat of assault or violence against a member of staff; gross misconduct in displaying extremely abusive behaviour against a member of staff; gross negligence by acting in a manner that brought the Government or public service into disrepute; gross misconduct in divulging confidential or secret information concerning public business or any other matters of which he had knowledge; and gross misconduct by acting in a manner that resulted in the divulgence of confidential information or secret to unauthorised persons.
Senior was given 14 days to respond.
He argued, however, in his affidavit that the interdiction served by Guy-Walker and the charges were “illegal, null and void and of no effect”.
He challenged that the HR director was not empowered to place him on interdiction under the proclamation rules and regulations.
Senior contended that under the proclamation rules and regulations, the Delegation of Function (Public Service) Order, 2007, such powers are conferred by the governor general and not the HR director.
Further, he insisted that the power delegated by the governor general to PICA’s CEO cannot be subdelegated by the CEO to the HR director in the absence of express statutory powers.
Senior said that the CEO had taken no steps to place him on interdiction.
“The Applicant further states that the act of purported interdiction initiated by the respondent against the applicant from [July] 2022 to July 2023 represents a continuous act of illegality on the part of the respondent and therefore time does not run against the applicant.
“In any event, the act of proffering charges on the 12th of July 2023 represents the last act of illegality in the interdiction process which would bring the applicant’s application within the three-month period for the bringing of application for judicial review,” Senior’s affidavit said.
“The Applicant asserts that he has a case with a realistic prospect of success and there are no discretionary bars to disqualify the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review,” it added.
It said that there was no alternative remedy but to challenge the interdiction.