The issue of whistleblowing was discussed recently in the public domain both with respect to the Guyana Police Force and the larger public service. Whereas discussion on the Guyana Police Force focused largely on alleged abuse of power, victimisation of junior ranks, corruption and collusion with criminals (see Kaieteur News (KN), June 28, 2019; Guyana Standard (GS), June 22, 2019), perspectives about whistleblowers versus political spies or moles have perhaps been the most salient focus of the discussion about the wider public service.
A whistleblower is one who reveals unethical, corrupt and unlawful activity conducted in secret and which would likely remain hidden otherwise. It needs to be clear that leaking information to political operatives in order to fortify party rhetoric and or influence political perceptions is not whistleblowing. But ultimately, the true test is the veracity of the information. If the information is correct and shows wrongdoing, there is no basis for calling the leaker a political spy. If on the other hand, the information is incorrect, it would be difficult to avoid attribution of the act to political mischief.
Whistleblowing is a valuable tool in the fight against corruption and resolute commitment to arresting corruption would necessitate robust whistleblower protection. However, although the Protected Disclosure Act 2018 was signed into law on February 12, 2018, it is yet to be fully activated. Specifically, the Protected Disclosures Commission has not been established thereby creating a vacancy of legal authority to administer the Act.
The Protected Disclosures Act 2018 would protect whistleblowers and those who handle the investigations from reprisals and provide immunity from criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings (see Section 17 of the Act). However, the Act is not to be applied retroactively (see Section 3 of the Act) and consequently, until it is brought into full operation by the Minister, whistleblowers remain without the protection that it contemplates.
Whistleblowing in the Guyana Police Service
That there is pervasive corruption in the Guyana Police Force is a view held by many. Support for this view can be found in just about every relevant national or subnational survey conducted in the country in the last ten years. It is quite common for the institution to feature at the bottom of the rankings on both trust and corruption perception. A TIGI survey conducted in 2018 corroborates this point of view as do the LAPOP data over the years.
Corruption in the police force in relation to petty matters is already a frightening reality. However, the existence of police collusion with criminals and those accused of crimes to evade the police, circumvent due process and to facilitate retribution against those who report crimes and provide evidence as alleged in various press reports this year (see KN, June 28, 2019; GS, June 22, 2019) is terrifying. Police officers who break the law and who put civilians at risk must be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law and without regard to their rank.
The police must recognise that they are entrusted with power that can disrupt the lives of citizens (including other police officers) and that this can have economic, emotional and other consequences for the people involved and their families. This needs to be appreciated at all levels and in all its dealings with citizens. Police actions that amount to abuse of authority and perversion of the state mechanisms and resources for corrupt ends cannot be tolerated. In addition to the dire consequences for citizens, police corruption tarnishes the reputation of the entire Force and overshadows the work of honest and upright officers who put themselves in harm’s way each day in service of the people of Guyana.
TIGI welcomes the news that whistleblowers in the police force are speaking out against corruption and abuse of power within. In fact, we recognise that cases have come up previously and that in recent years, police officers have been sanctioned and even imprisoned for corruption and involvement in other criminal activities. This is testimony to the fact that the Police Service is not all bad. Nevertheless, the recent complaints must be taken seriously and though we were pleased to learn that the accusations were investigated (KN, June 28, 2019), it is inappropriate for the police to investigate a high-ranking officer against the backdrop of the low trust and high level of perceived corruption in the Service.
It is unlikely that the results clearing the officer of wrongdoing (GS, September 6, 2019) would be accepted by the public given that it could have predicted such a result. This should have been anticipated by the Minister and the Police Force and notwithstanding the noble desire to let the system work, an independent investigation should have been conducted. The result of the internal investigation clearing the officer are likely to hurt both the Police Force and the officer.
Whistleblowers versus political spies in the public service
It would be to stand on treacherous ground for one to identify a public servant as a political mole or spy without robust evaluation. Neither holding a political perspective, even a public one, nor a different political perspective from that of the person providing the assessment is sufficient for such a conclusion. Note well that this does not mean that no such individuals exist in the public service or that they cannot be identified. We merely assert that everyone has a right to his/her political views and there should be no requirement for that view to be private for people in the public service except perhaps for those in sensitive and investigative roles, who must be seen as unbiased especially given our politically polarised context.
In spite of the allowance for freedom of expression and freedom of association, the public service is not a forum for political activism and there should be no tolerance for politically motivated job performance. Public servants must be judged based on their performance and there needs to be objective instruments to support such judgements. Where, subject to due process, public servants are found to have based their performance on partisan interest, they should not be allowed to continue in the public service which is meant to serve people of all persuasions.
Dr. Hinds’ pronouncements on the topic was the catalyst for the recent public debate. Our examination of his documented views indicates that he understands the need for due process in dealing with suspected political spies even though he believes that he knows that some are currently operating in the public service (GS, June 11, 2019). One thing that remains outstanding is a definition of a political spy. We believe that such a definition should be related to job performance.
It must also be seriously considered that political “spies” and “moles” need not be of the political opposition. They can also be placed by the governing party or other political interests.
In practice, whistleblowers use the media (including social media) and unbiased organisations to bring attention to the issues they wish to address. This is the approach that we recommend in the absence of full activation of the Protected Disclosures Act 2018.
Whistleblowing is about ensuring that breaches of the law and unethical behaviour are addressed and it is not intended to influence political perceptions and loyalties. Therefore, going through political and partisan actors is a poor choice even though one cannot discount it altogether (explained below). Given the regularity with which reports filtered through political actors are framed as whistleblowing, there appears to be a prevailing coloured view of what whistleblowing really is in the country. We encourage genuine whistleblowers to utilise party-neutral avenues.
Even as we provide this advice, we recognise that non-activation of the Protected Disclosures Act leads to a potential problem where some might feel a greater sense of security in approaching political entities even if this affects the validity of the revelations. It is on this matter that our perspective might diverge from that of Dr. Hinds; specifically, his views as represented in the press reports and in his letter to the editor (Hinds, June 12, 2019 in Guyana Chronicle) do not address the potential impact of non-activation of the Protected Disclosures Act 2018. This is a key issue especially given our experience as a society and the prevailing state of low trust in general. It is important that we eliminate the lack of guaranteed protection as a potential justification for people to approach politicians with their revelations.
In the interim, provision of incorrect or distorted information is perhaps the only basis for judging political motivation of those who use politicians and political entities as their whistleblowing outlets. Until there is proper activation of the whistleblowing law, persons who provide information to their political parties should not be ostracised for choosing who to trust. Concurrently, the political actors involved have a duty to the people who trust them to resist the urge to embellish or to weaponize such information for political gain.
