Jon Burrows: It is staggering that any holder of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland post cannot be suspended

However, Ms Anderson is not only a citizen but also the holder of a public office that exercises immense power. The current saga has exposed glaring gaps in the oversight and accountability arrangements of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, as well as disturbing difficulty in getting straight answers, or any answers at all from political leaders.

Six months ago, in this newspaper (January 24 – the web version of this article will link to it), I warned that the lack of transparency about who or what was being investigated by West Midlands Police, combined with unexplained delays, was damaging confidence in the ombudsman as an organisation.

Now, confidence in the accountability arrangements surrounding the office stand shattered by recent revelations that no power exists to suspend an police ombudsman under any circumstances.

The staggering revelation only came about following an exchange between the Justice Minister Naomi Long and myself on X. Theoretically, an ombudsman could be charged with murder and could not be suspended.

The ability to suspend or place work restrictions on someone who exercises legal powers when they are under criminal or misconduct investigation is vital.

It is sometimes necessary to suspend someone to protect public confidence, prevent interference with witnesses to an investigation, or protect the integrity of evidence and operational decision-making.

For example, a police officer under investigation for perverting the course of justice would, without prejudice to the presumption of innocence, be suspended or removed from duties that involve exercising powers or handling evidence.

This is because if the officer was eventually convicted of the offence, cases they were involved with could be legally challenged. Stopping further exposure to this risk is necessary, and the public has a right to expect that those exercising power over them are not under suspicion of abusing their powers.

While we cannot speculate on the details of the police investigation, it’s useful in the abstract to understand the nature of the offences under consideration by prosecutors.

Perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office carry maximum sentences of life imprisonment and are among the most serious offences possible breaches of an office holder's duties. Both are only triable at Crown Court and reserved for the most serious misconduct.

If there is no power to suspend an ombudsman in any circumstances, the question is what urgent steps have been taken to remedy this gap?

Without prejudice, it would be reasonable to expect the events over the last 21 months to have prompted a review of the accountability mechanisms. Ms Long explained in an interview on the Nolan Show that the risk of politicians abusing any power to suspend an ombudsman may be one reason none exists.

This is absurd. All government powers are wielded by politicians we elect; and it is ironic that the regulations issued by the Justice Minister that govern suspensions of senior PSNI officers give politicians in the Policing Board the power to initiate a suspension. In fact, the same regulations require the Police Ombudsman to approve or disapprove the board’s decision to suspend a senior PSNI officer.

Astonishingly, the police ombudsman retained the power to ratify the suspension of senior PSNI officers despite the ongoing West Midlands police investigation into possible serious offences linked to her residence.

Another vital question is whether the ombudsman’s vetting was reviewed after the incident at her home, especially once a criminal investigation was opened.

The Police Ombudsman is required to hold Developed Vetting (DV) which allows access to top-secret material. Those who hold such vetting are required to report any incidents to a vetting officer that may affect their vetting, and their line manager also has a responsibility to ensure such incidents are flagged for a vetting review.

Did the incident at Ms Anderson’s home and the ensuing criminal investigation prompt a formal review of top-level security clearance? Proper management of DV level vetting is a matter of national security.

Obtaining any information about this entire saga is a difficult task. The NIO refers queries to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, but they have remained conspicuously silent. Why is this?

Ms Anderson is currently on a ‘leave of absence’ and receiving full pay, but is this sickness absence or another form of leave? Who manages this, what policy applies, and is there a time limit when half pay kicks in? Everyone is entitled to privacy around medical matters, but there ought to be transparency about basic facts such as what sort of leave Ms Anderson is on.

As the questions about the handling of this matter mount, they expose again the dysfunction right across our justice system and broader problems of political leadership. Whatever prosecutors decide on the evidence in this case, two other steps are required.

Firstly, there must be major reform of the Office of the Police Ombudsman to ensure there is an effective accountability framework going forward. Secondly, there must be an independent report into the handling of this entire matter from start to finish.

• Jon Burrows is ex head of discipline in the PSNI