Justice Minister Naomi Long should withdraw her support for under-fire Police Ombudsman - Allister
Jim Allister says Stormont’s justice minister should withdraw her support for the under-fire Police Ombudsman, after a court ruling that she acted beyond her legal powers in claiming RUC officers were involved in “collusive behaviour” around loyalist paramilitary murders.
On Monday, the Police Ombudsman’s Office (PONI) confirmed that it would appeal the ruling made last week. The TUV leader said Marie Anderson “should be resigning in light of judgement, not appealing it”.
In Stormont, the justice minister Naomi Long would not be drawn on whether Ms Anderson should step down from her role, amid calls from unionist parties for her to do so.
Mrs Long said “in the view of the courts, the determinations reached exceeded the scope of the ombudsman's powers”. But she said her department has “no powers to remove or dislodge the ombudsman from office once appointed” by the Executive Office.
The Alliance leader also pointed out that the court ruling “did not strike down the wider parts” of the ombudsman’s reports.
North Antrim MP Jim Allister said: “The Ombudsman - having been slapped down on a number of occasions on the issue of her findings of collusion - should be resigning, not appealing this judgment.
“An appeal will see yet further waste of public money in what is increasingly appearing to be a mission to damage the reputation of a proud police force which stood between Northern Ireland and anarchy for 30 years and paid a shocking price for so doing”.
He said that in light of the news the ombudsman intends to appeal, the Justice Minister “needs to revisit her comments in the Assembly... and withdraw her support for the Ombudsman”.
Announcing its intention to appeal, PONI said a previous Court of Appeal decision “held expressly that it would be appropriate for the Police Ombudsman ‘to acknowledge that the matters uncovered by [her] were very largely what the families claimed constituted collusive behaviour’, and the Ombudsman has, therefore, followed that ruling in subsequent reports.
It added: “The Ombudsman seeks clarity as to the scope of her powers given that the judgment has significant implications for the work of the Office”.