Sensitive information about an investigation should not have been provided to a newspaper

Dear Editor

I read with keen interest a report in the Kaieteur News of Sunday, July 8, under the caption, ‘Cop, rural constable admit involvement in attempted bank robbery.’ The article posited, “It is Saunders who is providing the police with information about the incident and the persons behind the plot.”

The vexed question is did the police provide such sensitive information to the press? If not, was it the imagination of the writer and why did the news agency make public the name of the informant at this critical stage of the investigation?

Commissioner of Police Laurie Lewis imbedded in us the need to protect our source and not to disclose their names. His watchword was confidentiality.

Law enforcement officers have been complaining that persons have not been coming forward to give them vital information in relation to indictable matters under investigation. However, if there is no public confidence in the police and it appears as though in many cases confidentiality has gone through the window, the following will happen if it has not already manifested itself. As it relates to crime there will be persons with eyes who will not see; persons with ears who will not hear and persons with tongues who will not speak. The police expect those persons who have seen and heard to come forward with information in order that they will be able to solve crimes, but this will not happen if confidentiality is lacking.

Let us protect our whistleblowers even though they may be the accused.

Yours faithfully,

Clinton Conway

Assistant Commissioner of Police (ret’d)

Around the Web