The Police Service Commission (PSC) came under severe scrutiny last week when, apropos of apparently nothing, and saying nothing by way of explanation, it ended James Philbert's stint as acting Police Commissioner one month early. Faced with speculation and queries, the PSC on Monday issued a statement which claimed that its decision had been made to facilitate a smooth transition for the incoming Police Commissioner, Dwayne Gibbs.

This woefully inadequate response can only undermine public confidence in the Commission.

The previous board of the PSC became known for holding media conferences and briefings on its procedures and decisions, and for publishing its findings and procedural updates. It is an example of performance in public affairs that the present Commission should study and closely follow. For the present Commission shares the same need as its predecessor to assure citizens that its board members are up to the demands of transparency and the other challenges before them.

The manner in which Mr Philbert was released was incomprehensibly rude. He had not been informed of the decision beforehand, and had been given zero notice. Indeed, that very act itself is capable of disrupting a smooth transition.

Now, the Commission's unsatisfactory "explanation" heaps further calumny on Mr Philbert's head by its innuendo that, were he in place to hand over to his successor, that would have somehow undermined an orderly transition. Whatever Mr Philbert's failures in his stint as police chief, he cannot be accused of conducting himself unprofessionally. It is the Commission which has been less than professional.

A former Police Service Commission chairman and a senior counsel in private practice have agreed that Mr Philbert's contract may have been breached. Questioned by the Express, Christopher Thomas noted the contract was until September 30; senior counsel Dana Seetahal said the reason given by the PSC constitutes "a clear case of breach of contract". At the very least, then, Mr Philbert may have to, and indeed, should, be paid for the month he was prevented from serving.

It would be astonishing if the present PSC chairman Nizam Mohammed, himself an experienced lawyer, did not realise the legal implications. Worse, it is alarming, in light of the fact that Mr Mohammed had been once aligned to the main faction of the ruling coalition.

If the Mohammed board is seen to be vulnerable to political pressure, how can citizens be assured that Police Service personnel matters will not be skewed by political interference? The Commission should bear in mind that people are no longer willing to tolerate cronyism, overlook ineptitude, and accept secrecy from such key bodies.

It is disturbing even to suspect that the first independent State board called into being under the People's Partnership Government may not be independent. Chairman Mohammed should dispel forthwith the dark suspicions given rise by his Commission's earliest actions.