Dear Editor,
Chairman of the Police Com-plaints Authority (PCA), retired Justice Cecil Kennard, recently reacted to criticism by explaining how the PCA works and releasing some interesting statistics.
According to Chairman Kennard, a member of the public may make a complaint against the police by telephone or in writing. The report is taken by the PCA and sent to the Commissioner of Police for investigation. The investigation is done by police ranks. The Commissioner then returns the file, with statements and findings, to the PCA for consideration.
The PCA makes a determination of whether the rank(s) involved in the complaint, should be charged. If it is so determined, the file is again sent to the Commissioner and a police disciplinary hearing is conducted by the police. The findings of the hearing are added to the file, the file is then returned to the PCA for final recommendations of penalty.
This system has many flaws including:
1. Excessive bureaucratic steps which result in delays.
2. All investigations and hearings are conducted by the police. The police, therefore, investigate themselves, clearly a conflict of interest.
3. The PCA’s findings are entirely dependent on the results of investigations of police conduct, done by police.
Additionally, the PCA is not included in disciplinary hearings and must accept the findings of the police.
Evidently, fundamental chang-es are necessary.
1. The PCA should be financially and administratively independent. Funding for this and similar bodies should come from parliament, not the cabinet. The PCA should not be taking orders from the same minister who controls the police force. The PCA should report exclusively to the relevant service commission.
2. The PCA should be staffed with investigators and legal counsel. PCA investigators should conduct all interviews and take all statements independently of the police.
The PCA’s legal counsel should be present at disciplinary hearings and represent the interests of the complainant at such hearings. That is, the system of hearings should be made adversarial.
3. The final determination of penalty by the PCA should be final and binding on the police.
Therefore, an independent PCA should take a complaint, investigate it, act as prosecutor in disciplinary hearings and make binding recommendations of penalty.
Chairman Kennard further reported that as of December 9, 2013, the PCA had sent some 450 telephone complaints and 251 written complaints to the Commissioner of Police.
Of the 251 written complaints, 169 were still being reviewed by the Commissioner. Chairman Kennard said that numerous reminders are routinely sent to the Commissioner regarding outstanding matters. No follow-up information was forthcoming about the telephone complaints.
Clearly, this is not acceptable. According to the Chairman, neglect of duty accounts for the majority of reports against police ranks.
This includes the failure of ranks to conduct investigations, follow up on reports, or appear in court. In a recent case, an accused killer walked free because ranks did not appear in court. This is obviously a major problem.
Reports of police excesses including torture, excessive use of force, unlawful arrest, unjustified search and seizure, extra-judicial actions and unlawful conduct are numerous.
The people of Guyana deserve a professional, efficient and effective police force, free of corruption. The PCA, as the oversight body, must be strengthened and given the necessary tools and independence to be effective.
The Police Complaints Autho-rity Act, Chapter 17:02 and the Police (Discipline) Act, Chapter 17:01 must be reviewed and amended to address the real needs and concerns of the public.
Lawmakers must ensure that the Police Complaints Authority is not just the name of a lame and powerless office. The PCA must be given real authority to do its work in the interest of the public.
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
