WHEN Police Commissioner Clayton Fernander took up his post, one of the first things he addressed was the vacation leave he was forced to take under the Minnis administration.

Clearly affected by his treatment at the time, he said while being interviewed on Jerome Sawyer’s television show “On The Record” in August that he was “still trying to find out today what really happened”.

He claimed some of his colleagues stopped talking to him due to an “instruction”. He said: “When I moved about, some people stopped calling. Some of my own colleagues stopped even communicating and some of them said they got instructions.”

He added: “It came from the top because officers came and told me that certain people told them they don’t want them around Fernander.”

Commissioner Fernander was not alone in being forced to take leave – so were then Assistant Commissioner Leamond Deleveaux, now Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner Kendal Strachan. Mr Fernander and Mr Deleveaux filed a lawsuit after their treatment.

Commissioner Fernander said that he felt “somebody should speak up”.

In this column, we spoke of how there must be a better way to use the talents of officers who have given so much for our country, and questioned why they would be forced on leave then reassigned to jobs that just seemed to keep them out of the way.

Which brings us now to the case of Charles Murphy. The current administration sent him on leave in September so officials could investigate the case of Prescott Smith, a man who was being kept at the prison in a possible breach of a Supreme Court order.

There was talk of an independent investigation, with a lawyer to be brought in from Canada to handle the probe.

And yet, that never happened – and now National Security Minister Wayne Munroe has reportedly said that the government has decided not to fund that inquiry.

This column carries no torch for Mr Murphy. Indeed, we previously said in this column that he had some cheek when he told one of our reporters that they “ought not to take up” questions on whether COVID had reached the prison, despite officers feeling their concerns on the matter were ignored. He also dismissed concerns raised by prisoners about small pieces of broken glass allegedly being found in inmates’ food.

So we say without favour that if the treatment of Mr Fernander was unfair, then so too seems the treatment of Mr Murphy.

To remove someone from their post pending an investigation that a year later you decide you won’t fund is no way to treat any public servant.

Indeed, if any government can act this way, then where is the defence for any public servant who just wants to do their job?

Attorney Romona Farquharson said “they basically defamed a senior public servant. Sought to blemish his career, put him out to pasture, and now once he has reached the time for his retirement, now you’re going to announce that you’re not going to have the investigation”.

That the matter is further complicated by Mr Munroe’s law firm having previously represented Deputy Commissioners Doan Cleare and Bernadette Murray in a lawsuit after the pair were sidelined by the previous administration is an extra frustration.

Public servants should not have their careers tainted by the perception that they are being picked – or picked on – by one administration or another, and nor should the talents of those long in their posts be wasted by putting them on prolonged leave or shuffling them off to make-work roles to get them out of the way.

More than that, if a person is subject to accusations so serious it requires their removal from their post, then proof is required, and an opportunity for that individual to answer such claims. That’s not just fairness, that’s the principles of justice.

If the police officers were treated poorly by the Minnis administration, then so too has Mr Murphy been by the Davis administration – and so the cycle goes on.

We must do better – it’s the least our public servants deserve.