Dear Editor,
Officers and ranks of the Guyana Police Force undoubtedly face difficult situations as they struggle to prevent and combat crime for which they often appear inadequately trained and under resourced. In the course of their everyday work, individual police officers often act with a degree of autonomy and independent judgment, exercising discretion in the discharge of their duties and the enforcement of particular laws.
The police are often very aggressive, and it appears that instead of being trained to deal with people in a respectful manner, they operate under the assumption that everyone is a potential criminal. They regularly use stop and search procedures and it appears that this is used more than intelligence-led policing. The police, armed with weapons, converged on a popular nightclub last weekend, instructed the staff to turn the music off and the lights on, and advised patrons that they would be searched. No reason was provided. The patrons complied, since non-compliance is not recommended when interacting with members of the Guyana Police Force.
The Guyana Constitution guarantees that no one should be subjected to arbitrary search of his person or property or entry by others into his premises. The police must have reasonable grounds for suspicion to carry out a search. Police officers must be familiar with the kinds of circumstances that can support reasonable suspicion and those that will not.
The public lack confidence in the Guyana Police Force’s competence and integrity. The public’s perceptions are in many respects justifiable, and result in low reporting levels of crime. The public complains about police inaction and giving excuses for doing nothing in the face of crime. They also complain of police brutality, torture, assault, trigger-happiness, wrongful arrest, harassment, incivility, disregard for human rights, corruption and extortion, among other things. There is also strong belief amongst the disadvantaged that the police and security forces abuse them with impunity. It is felt that two different standards of justice are being applied.
Respect for human rights lies at the heart of good governance. In a democratic society, the state is responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights. The role of the police is especially significant in this respect. They are charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and enforcing laws. Therefore, the onus of bringing those who break the law, including laws which protect people’s human rights, before the criminal justice system lies on the police. Unfortunately, many a time, while discharging this duty, the actions of the police conflict with human rights. Police officers are pressured to get quick results, seemingly often with unofficial understandings that they may use any means possible to accomplish the task at hand. However, the police have both a legal duty and a moral obligation to uphold human rights standards and act strictly in accordance with the law and the spirit of our constitution.
The fundamental rights provisions of our constitution go a long way towards striking that balance between the vulnerability of the individual and the might of the state.
There is a belief held by many police officers, and often shared by ordinary members of the public, that human rights can be an impediment to “effective” policing. According to this perspective, a human rights’ approach to policing tends to be overly concerned with the rights of criminals rather than the victims of crime, who have a right to protection.
I am sure that the Commissioner of Police appreciates that any perception that the police are habitually guilty of human rights’ abuses can serve only to weaken morale within the ranks of the force and make it more difficult for the force to obtain the cooperation of the general public. Community support and assistance from the public to the force are an essential context for preventing and combating crime.
It is imperative and timely to subject police powers to restraints so that they do not themselves become inimical to the social values they are intended to promote. Legislation similar to the United Kingdom Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) should be considered. PACE and the PACE Codes of Practice provide the core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing detainees. PACE sets out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the freedoms of the public.
The Commissioner and his officers and ranks face an active press scrutinising and publicising every move of the police, and zealous human rights bodies are quick to highlight the shortcomings of members of the force, and one recognises that the police don’t have an easy task. These responsibilities must be carried out consistently. Modern legislation would clearly assist the police in the performance of their responsibilities and also provide undeniable benefits to the public by enhancing police accountability through transparency.
Yours faithfully,
Dawn A. Holder
