Dear Editor,
Kindly allow me to comment on the recent (alleged) shakedown by a CANU officer, who reportedly attempted to falsely accuse an outgoing passenger at CJI Airport of having an illegal substance in her suitcase; an experience that she recorded and published on social media.
While I am not suggesting that the investigation into matter has indeed been exhausted; given what has been released so far by the relevant authorities, there is no way that the public ought to accept that the matter has yet been adequately dealt with. The announcement that the accused officer was fired, ostensibly for breaching some operational protocol, would not by itself meet any standard of public acceptability.
CANU ought to be concerned, not only for the public’s sake, but also out of concern for their own professional image, and that of those ranks who, contrastingly, would be honest and professional officers. Further, CANU, and those responsible for such matters, ought to be concerned that this incident calls into question the validity of all comparable previous arrests, where those could also have resulted from similar corrupt activity; especially those made by the rank(s) in question, or under the system employed at the time.
Thus, while CANU needs to make sure that its good work would not be tarnished, the public (including tourists) needs to be reassured that they could travel without fear of such occurrences.
It is therefore incumbent on the authorities to proactively ensure that systems are quickly implemented to ensure that the possibility of a shakedown or frameup is eliminated via secure, tangible, verifiable, transparent and externally auditable systems; and not merely by some operational protocol that any corrupt officer could easily breach.
No single officer should be in a position to make such an allegation in the absence of a preponderance of verifiable sources. Bag inspections should be made in the presence of official witnesses and clear video recordings should at all times provide accessible and verifiable long-term records. Definitely, passengers should be allowed, where possible, to be present and observe the scanner check of their luggage; and any further inspection arising immediately therefrom should be conducted in their presence, with them having full authority to video record the inspection and/or to select a witness of their choice.
While it is difficult to imagine that a passenger would be smuggling a few grams of weed out of Guyana to a country where its possession is either lawful or a minor offence, it is not too hard to imagine that corrupt officers would want to frame a passenger, especially a young female travelling alone, either as a shakedown or to create a diversion from a real drug mule on the same flight. One could imagine what could take place at a more remote port.
The PR mechanisms of the agencies involved should have stepped into high gear by now, assuring the public of the systems and methodologies that they have (now) implemented at all ports of entry/departure, not only to eliminate a recurrence, but to be independently verifiable.
While we all want to see the scourge of drug trafficking disappear, I submit that we be guided by Blackstone’s Ratio which presents the idea that it is better to have ten guilty persons escape than to have one innocent suffer.
Until then, we travel with great apprehension. I congratulate the brave lady who was smart enough to record her experience and publish it on social media.
Yours faithfully,
Keith Evelyn
