Dear Editor,
The public perception is that our Police Force is broken.
When Assistant Commissioner Paul Slowe went on pre-retirement leave some years ago, he broke the rule of silence and spoke out in respect of “blatant corruption and other illegal activities in the Guyana Police Force” which he said “have gotten out of control.” Slowe is reported to having admitted that he was ashamed: “Sometimes I am ashamed, because when I joined the force you had incidents yes, but not this blatant corruption by some of the ranks, brutalizing people and behaving as if they are a law unto themselves, the thing I believe has gone out of control.”
Corruption – Every Guyanese knows of the abuse by members of the Force, of their powers of stop, search, arrest and general ‘law enforcement’ to intimidate members of the public, to solicit bribes from motorists and generally to play God in our society. In their ordinary lives and activities, members of the Force are above the law. They use their sirens to force a way through heavy traffic and to jump traffic lights, not because there is an emergency or they are in hot pursuit, but because they cannot be bothered to wait. Some will jump the light without troubling to use the siren. Their privately owned vehicles are (illegally) heavily tinted, although their campaign against tinted vehicles of ordinary citizens is a source of welcome undocumented revenue. Minibuses owned by members of the Force drive recklessly, blaring music, secure in the knowledge that they are answerable to none. Their less well-connected competition must operate more cautiously.
Incompetence – To compound the problem, the general perception is that the Force is incompetent to solve crimes, so that crime goes unpunished and criminals operate with impunity. If someone did not actually witness the perpetrator in the act of committing a crime, the chances of our Force solving the crime by the art of detection are minuscule. Any investigation more complex than fingerprinting is beyond our ken. Some years ago, I sat in court when Justice Singh (now retired) refused to admit into evidence a signed confession in a murder trial and berated the police for beating prisoners to obtain confessions. The rank sitting next to me shifted in his seat and muttered angrily to his colleague, “How she expect we fuh get the confession.” We all await the outcome of the police investigation into the tragic case of Crum-Ewing.
Illegality in performance of duties – In the so-called execution of their duties, members of the Force have been known to act unlawfully and in such a heavy handed manner that even law abiding citizens are afraid and intimidated. Years ago, no one pointed out that breaking into a private house in the early hours of the morning without a search warrant signed by a magistrate was illegal, even if the trespasser was the police. Blair was killed in his own home by police who broke into his home, and then killed him in self defence. A group of university students was fired upon and one killed on Sheriff Street. Prison inmates mysteriously hang themselves, or come out of remand in dire physical condition although they were quite healthy when arrested. Less sensational but more prevalent, motorists are arrested for minor infractions which do not in fact carry imprisonment penalties, but only fines.
Accountability – When illegality by ranks is alleged, the inquiry has never in my memory resulted in anything more than a slap on the wrist. Recently, ranks accused of torture have in fact been promoted. Only one result can be expected if an inquiry is conducted of police by police. When murder accused Shaka Chase accused ranks of torturing him while he was incarcerated, the investigation of his complaint was done by police, the report prepared by police, and the file containing that professionally compiled body of evidence was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecution by the police.
And yet in the present election campaign, there has been little or nothing said on this enormous problem. Mr Granger’s most memorable protest concerning the Force was that he was not consulted in the appointment of Commissioner Seelall. He did not indicate why he objected to that appointment, or what limitations Seelall suffered which argued for preference for some other choice. Certainly there was no surprise in the appointment; from all reports Seelall is a professional policeman respected by his contemporaries, and next in line for appointment. What was the problem?
In fact, I believe that Seelall’s first public act in office shows promise. His statement that motorists should only be stopped by traffic ranks, and that road blocks should exist only near police stations has immediately made inroads to the fear and intimidation suffered by motorists, and curtailed the ad hoc excesses by non-traffic ranks. But it had that effect without an unpleasant and public confrontation of the spectre of police abuse in that field, without undermining the relationship of a new Commissioner with his Force. It was subtle, and effective.
And there may be cause for cautious, fragile optimism that there is light at the end of the tunnel. In my last two exchanges with police ranks, one black (Gould) and one Indian (Muhammed), both behaved professionally. There may be a new culture evolving.
So my questions to the contesting political parties are:
(1) Are you satisfied that our Police Force is professional, competent, and equipped to carry out its functions?
(2) Are you satisfied that its members are qualified and trained?
(3) Is there a system of handling complaints by members of the public which is quick, reliable and yields just results?
(4) Is there an independent body equipped and competent to investigate corruption allegations in the Force?
(5) Is there a review of operations conducted by the Force to ensure legality and respect for the constitutional rights of citizens, and continuous education of members of the Force to respect these rights?
(6) (To the government) What steps have you taken to improve the professionalism of the Force and to better equip it to protect and serve the populace, to hold it accountable for wrongdoing, to improve the competence and professionalism of its members, and to ameliorate the public perception of the Force?
(6) Have those measures been successful, so that you are satisfied with the improvements which they have produced?
(7) What further measures do you propose to implement to improve the Force and its relationship with the citizenry in the future?
Yours faithfully,
Timothy M. Jonas
