It is no secret that the Guyana Police Force has been hard-pressed to continuously prove to its critics that it is capable of rebuffing political interference in its work. It failed miserably to acquit itself well during the tenure of Commissioner McDonald and it is having an equally hard time under the leadership of Commissioner Greene. So unsurprisingly, not only did many of the horrible excesses of the multiple killing gangs occur under the watch of these two commissioners but they also managed to preside over an incomparable unawareness of the culpable and of serial botched investigations. This abundance of fogginess and quicksand would have meshed well with the wishes of those in the senior political directorate. Commissioner Felix also had his share of these experiences but redeemed himself somewhat with the robust pursuit of now convicted drug lord Mr Roger Khan and his kinsmen.
Political interference once cultivated and indulged knows no bounds and so over the years it has ventured into all fields of police endeavours and had it not been for vigilance by some parts of the media many other abominations would have gone by unnoticed. The hidden hand may be at work again in the investigation that has been mounted of politician /businessman Mr Peter Ramsaroop.
There should be no equivocation that the police must adequately and diligently pursue investigations based on the complaint lodged against Mr Ramsaroop in relation to hidden cameras. No angle must be left uninvestigated and if the police muster the requisite evidence then justice must take its normal course.
However, the police must be aware that a skeptical public is acutely attuned to the fact that the force is susceptible to political pressures. When else can politically tainted probes be more damaging to politicians than in the backdrop of fast approaching general elections?
In the case of Mr Ramsaroop, a valid question has been raised by the media about why the police force made the most unusual decision to release to the public copies of the statements made by Mr Ramsaroop and the complainant during the investigation. What was achieved by this? The police have been loath to release statements made by suspects and complainants in any case much less one that is just days old and not in need of any public elucidation just yet.
When asked to explain the reasoning behind the release of the statements given by Mr Ramsaroop and the complainant, Commissioner Greene could provide no credible explanation. He was quoted as saying that the decision was taken to “satisfy the public…I think that there was a lot of issue over why the search was done, where it was done etc and who was speaking the truth and we decided to let the public see what we have”.
This statement by Commissioner Greene represents pure and unadulterated nonsense. When last or if ever have the police hastened to present to the public, statements on their investigations? Since when the release of two statements cn determine who is telling the truth? Since when is the police force obliged to be sensitive to calls from the public? Were that the case there would have been a mountain of statement releases dating back to Monica Reece and going forward to the Lindo Creek massacre. But conveniently there are no such statements in the public domain despite the incessant questions over Lindo Creek and any number of other deeply troubling cases. Moreover, the release of the statements are inimical to the inquiry that is still underway and goes completely against the responsibility of the force to gather information for the purposes of solely determining whether a charge can be proferred.
There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from the release of the two statements. First, because Mr Ramsaroop is known to be an opponent of the government, his predicament with one of his tenants was the perfect opportunity to strike a blow against his credibility via the release of handwritten statements.
Or, the police hierarchy wanted to please the government and a person or persons made the decision independent of any political pressure to have Mr Ramsaroop subjected to embarrassing scrutiny by having his statement released to the public.
Either way it was highly unusual and has now created a damning precedent. Instead of the Police Commissioner acknowledging that there was a monumental mistake in the release of the statements and that it would not happen again, Mr Greene tried to defend the indefensible. It is this pattern of policing that panders to politicians that has brought the GPF into disrepute and seriously ruptured its relationship with the public.
With the election season fast approaching and a host of other issues in play, it is imperative that the Commissioner of Police and the men and women in the GPF make a renewed and diligent effort to avoid the perception and reality that the force is a plaything to be directed by the government and its decision makers.
To date, Commissioner Greene’s force has failed to effectively demarcate a line in the sand that the government is not permitted cross and in all fairness the police force that the PPP/C found when it acceded to office had been deeply damaged by political interference at many levels. Nevertheless, the PPP/C entered office on the back of a democratic election. It of all groups should have been patently aware of the need to not compromise the independence of the police force.
Justice must be done in this investigation of Mr Ramsaroop and the present situation also provides the police force with a belated opportunity to divert from this habit of playing into the government’s hands.
