Dear Editor,
With keen interest I read a Sunday Stabroek, January15, article under the caption ‘Police Complaints Chairman welcomes more sleuths.’ The article stated that the Chairman in his end of the year report said that the Police Complaints Authority may get an additional seven investigators through an Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) – funded programme. According to the Chairman the additional investigators will increase the current complement to 11 which will be welcome, given the PCA’s workload.
I may sound monotonous as I had previously mentioned that the four current PCA investigators did not have the legal authority to investigate breaches of discipline under the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17:01.
Now, the projected employment of seven additional investigators if appointed will mean more investigators, more unlawful investigations and breaches of the Act with impunity. Section 4 (1) states, “Every alleged commission of a breach of discipline under this Act shall be investigated as soon as practicable by a member of the Force not below the rank of Sergeant and of a higher rank than the member of the Force who is alleged to have committed the offence.”
The act is pellucid. There is no legal morass. Persons conducting investigations in relation to breaches of discipline under this Act must be sergeants and of a higher rank than the member of the Force who is alleged to have committed the breach of discipline. The word ‘shall’ used in this Act is a command. It is a sine qua non. It does not mean if, perhaps or maybe. There has been no amendment of this Act since it became law in 1977. It has remained pristine. The Police Complaints Authority Act, Chapter 17:02 which was assented to by President Desmond Hoyte in 1989 does not change a single word in the Police (Discipline) Act. In fact, section 7 (1) of the Complaints Authority Act states, “The provisions of this Part shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provision of the Police (Discipline) Act.” The Part refers to ‘Inquiry Into Complaints Of Misconduct By Members Of The Force.’
The current investigators are not sergeants or above the rank of sergeants, neither are they members of the GPF. They are breaching the law when they conduct investigations into alleged breaches of discipline under the Police (Discipline) Act. The others if approved will do likewise, in keeping with the established modus of the Authority. But, why the need for 11 investigators? Perhaps the Authority conducted a study on the behaviour pattern of the police and came up with a futuristic position that the ranks will commit so many disciplinary offences they will require the employment of at least 11 investigators to effectively deal with the situation. The Commissioner should look out for a massive number of cases of deviant behaviour and recidivism.
Why take the illegality to another level ‒ an international level, involving the IDB to fund the programme. I agree that the complaints are far too many. They must not be treated lightly, but several can be classified as frivolous, vexatious or unfounded. I do not have any problem with the investigation of defaulting members of the Force for disciplinary offences, as long as it is conducted within the ambit of the law. Does the PCA need that unusually large number of investigators as compared to other departments that are required to conduct investigations into numerous serious crimes and other major matters? Dr Sam Sittlington a British High Commission-contracted money laundering consultant with responsibility to oversee money laundering activities in Guyana was recently quoted in the press as saying that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) has 300 criminal cases to deal with, yet it only has four investigators. Among the matters SOCU has to investigate are the criminal aspects of recent forensic audits including NICIL; Cricket World Cup; Guyana Marketing Corporation; Pradoville 2; Massive gold and currency smuggling; hundreds of files to be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Legal Advisor. The list is endless, yet Head of SOCU Sydney James (a retired army colonel) has only four investigators under his command, while the Police Complaints Authority is planning to employ at least eleven during this year. The Authority may even have more investigators than the Major Crimes Unit at the Criminal Investigation Department, Eve Leary which is doing some fantastic work in solving major crimes including cold cases. Is it that the inquiry into disciplinary matters against police ranks takes priority over criminal and other major investigations? Let us ensure that we make full use of our most precious resource ‒ the human resource.
Justice and fair play must prevail.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of
Police (Rtd)
