SSP Cameron gets Supreme Court nod to challenge POA removal; Commissioner's order blocked

Senior Superintendent Wayne Cameron has been granted permission by the Supreme Court to challenge Police Commissioner Dr Kevin Blake’s order that he be removed as chairman of the Police Officers’ Association (POA). The court has also blocked the implementation of the commissioner's directives until the dispute is resolved.

Justice Ann-Marie Nembhard handed down her 46-page judgment today on Cameron's applications for permission to seek judicial review and for an injunction restraining the commissioner.

Among her orders is an interim injunction "restraining the Respondent (Blake), whether acting in concert, by himself, his servants and/or agents or otherwise howsoever from directing or causing to be convened any meeting of the Police Officers’ Association for the purposes of removing the applicant (Blake) as chairman and appointing a chairman pro tem or otherwise, pending the determination of the claim for judicial review or further orders of the court."

Judicial review allows courts to assess the legality and fairness of decisions of public authorities.

The conflict erupted on September 8, 2025 when Commissioner Blake directed that the POA chairmanship be vacated. In his sworn affidavit, he cited "glaring contradictions and irregularities" in the association’s unaudited accounts and a failure to hold an Annual General Meeting since 2022.

Blake argued the move was a managerial necessity to "safeguard the funds" contributed by over 350 senior officers and was not done out of spite.

However, Cameron’s legal team argued the Commissioner exceeded his legal authority, by interfering in the internal governance of an incorporated body.

Cameron further alleged the move was an act of "political victimisation" and retaliation for a grievance he had previously filed with the Office of the Services Commissions regarding his promotion and transfer.

Justice Nembhard ruled that Cameron had met the "low threshold" required for judicial review.

She also found that Cameron "there are arguable grounds for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success".

Cameron has been given 14 days to file a formal claim for judicial review, which will determine whether the Commissioner’s directives should be permanently quashed.

Cameron was represented by Lemar Neale, while the commissioner of police was represnted by King's Counsel Peter Champagnie and attorneys Neco Pagon and Sayeed Bernard.

The applications were filed on September 8 and heard on December 8 and 11.

More details later.

Supreme Court Orders (January 9, 2026)

1. The Applicant is granted leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Respondent, which are contained in letter dated 8 September 2025, to wit:

i. directing that the Chair of the Police Officers’ Association be vacated;

ii. directing that the Applicant is not permitted to represent the Jamaica Constabulary Force outside of official duties;

iii. directing the remaining members of the Police Officers’ Association Executive to appoint a Chairman pro tem; and

iv. directing the Chairman pro tem to call a Special General Meeting for the purpose of electing a new Executive in accordance with the established conventions,

by way of an order of Certiorari to quash the said decisions.

2. The grant of leave to apply for judicial review is conditional upon the Applicant making a claim for judicial review within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the order granting leave.

3. An interim injunction is granted restraining the Respondent, whether acting in concert, by himself, his servants and/or agents or otherwise howsoever from directing or causing to be convened any meeting of the Police Officers’ Association for the purposes of removing the Applicant as Chairman and appointing a Chairman pro tem or otherwise, pending the determination of the claim for judicial review or further orders of the court.

4. The Court declines to grant the Order sought at paragraph 3 of the Notice of Application for Court Orders, which was filed on 10 September 2025.

5. The implementation of the decisions of the Respondent, which are contained in letter dated 8 September 2025, is hereby stayed pending the determination of the claim for judicial review or until further orders of the court.