Police Commissioner Orders Officer to Remove Dreadlocks, AG Declines Comment

As previously reported, Corporal Kenrick Bol recently became the first male police officer to wear dreadlocks while on duty. However, the Commissioner of Police has since issued a warning, informing Bol that the hairstyle is not permitted and must be removed in keeping with existing police regulations.  The issue has attracted public attention due to its constitutional implications and its similarities to a landmark legal case decided in 2019. In that case, several female police officers were charged for their hairstyles, a matter that was ultimately taken to court. The officers were represented by Anthony Sylvestre in his capacity as a private attorney, and the court ruled in their favor, setting a regional precedent on personal expression and workplace regulations.  Now serving as Attorney General and principal legal adviser to the government, Sylvestre was asked what position he would take should Corporal Bol’s matter advance to a legal challenge.  Sylvestre indicated that he is unable to offer any comment on the issue at this stage, explaining that the matter has not formally been presented to his office.

Anthony Sylvestre, Attorney General: “When an issue arises that requires some legal representation or some legal advice, the respective department or ministry would write to us and request advice. We haven’t, that is the Attorney General’s ministry has not received a request for advice or representation on the matter as yet. So I will not be able to speak about the specifics. But what I can say as it relates to the case that I did when I was in private practice, the Shantel Berry case. So that case, the police department had invoked one of its regulation, I think it was regulation seven. And that regulation provided that as a female, and this is very important to note because that case and the principles were applied relating to how the court would interpret the application of the rule to a female police officer. So a female police officer, they can wear their hair to a certain length. It has to be above the color. So what you had in those circumstances, the police officers, they demonstrated that look that’s fine that we have in dreadlocks they could still conform with the rule and that went afoul of the rule. So what the court had found is that on its face, the rule was not discriminatory. I’m not too familiar and again, we haven’t been seized with the specific facts of the case that you are alluding to so I cannot determine or I cannot speak to what may or may not necessarily be the advice that we would offer. Suffice it to say that as it relates to discrimination, discrimination matters usually are fact-sensitive meaning you have to look at the specific facts before determination could be made. So, that is the extent to which I could provide some guidance or some response to that particular question.”

Meanwhile, observers continue to question how the issue may be addressed if it proceeds to court, particularly given the existing precedent and evolving discussions around equality, personal expression, and uniformed service regulations.  For now, the Police Department has not indicated whether further disciplinary action will be taken, and it remains unclear whether Corporal Bol intends to legally challenge the directive.