If before this year, the Guyana Police Force (GPF) had managed to arrive at a position where it could be viewed with some amount of trust by the people it is mandated to serve and protect, that has all been lost again in the wake of the two recent huge missteps. A lack of credibility is all it takes to raise suspicion and scepticism, which are then very quickly followed by distrust; the original position from which the police have been viewed by many.
British historian A J P Taylor was credited with saying, “Human blunders usually do more to shape history than human wickedness.” While that might be true, a blunder can usually be corrected, but wickedness stems from pure evil. One hopes therefore that what occurred recently was the former.
The first debacle involved the disappearance and death of former Paramakatoi resident Reonol Williams in May. It had been reported that Mr Williams was returning to his Enmore, East Coast Demerara home with a friend, when he was struck down by a motor vehicle. The driver reportedly told Mr Williams’s friend that he would take the injured man to seek medical attention and believing him, the friend set off to apprise the man’s family of what had occurred. However, Mr Williams simply disappeared. His family could not find him at any hospital, clinic or morgue.
The police subsequently found the car which had struck down Mr Williams, but the owner claimed that he had not been driving it at the time of the incident. Then, even after the owner was picked out as the driver by the eyewitness in an identification parade, inexplicably, the police released him on bail. According to answers to the questions posed by the media, the police were instead trying to find the phantom driver, who the owner alleged had taken his vehicle without his permission.
Mr Williams’s family began to hold vigils at the accident site during which they pleaded for answers and for the police to do their work properly, while holding placards demanding justice. The case had also gripped the public’s attention and was widely shared on social media.
Eighteen days after Mr Williams was struck down and subsequently disappeared, the owner of the car finally took the police to where he had dumped Mr Williams’s body and was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, failure to report an accident, failure to render assistance after an accident, failure to produce his vehicle for examination, giving false information to the police and attempting to obstruct the course of justice. He has since pleaded not guilty, has been refused bail, and will be tried.
No one could be faulted for thinking that had it not been for the persistence of Mr Williams’s relatives, there might have been no resolution in this case. Were the deceased gentleman a loner, or not well liked, would the police ever have cottoned on to the lie they were told? Would they even have bothered to follow up given that the body could not be found? What if, when he was first released on bail, the car owner had simply done a runner? How hard would the police have tried to find him? Was this a case of incompetence or something else?
The second fiasco occurred in the case of Quindon Bacchus who was shot six times during a police operation on June 10. According to a police press release issued right after the shooting, it was as a result of a sting operation gone awry. The release claimed that Mr Bacchus had run away from the undercover officer and while doing so, discharged his gun in the policeman’s direction. It said the policeman gave chase while returning fire using his service revolver and his bullets hit Mr Bacchus about his body. The police then picked up the wounded but conscious Mr Bacchus and took him to the Georgetown Public Hospital where he succumbed while receiving treatment. All of this has been in the public domain since June 11. However it bears repeating given what was later revealed in the report from the post-mortem examination.
According to a second police statement, Dr Nehaul Singh’s PME report said Mr Bacchus had died as a result of “multiple gunshot wounds”. Mr Bacchus’s relatives later revealed that he had sustained six gunshot wounds, one of which was to his head. Just how many shots did this policeman fire? How was this possible during a pursuit?
The GPF’s release would have us imagine that the lone officer who was running behind the fleeing Mr Bacchus was a very skilled marksman, because not only could he hit a moving target, but he managed to do so six times. Incredulous. That was what the police expected everyone to believe without explaining why this clearly brilliant sharpshooter did not aim at Mr Bacchus’s legs instead.
Other questions that arose included why was there a need to fire six or more times? Surely Mr Bacchus would have been incapacitated after one or two bullets hit his body. Furthermore, how many rounds does a GPF service revolver hold?
The policeman will now face a murder charge, as recommended by the Director of Public Prosecutions on Monday. However, the GPF is not absolved of the responsibility of explaining the reason behind the obviously unsubstantiated statements in its press release. Surely officers are debriefed after they fire their guns; especially when that use results in the loss of life? Were no red flags raised during this officer’s debriefing?
Mr Bacchus’s murder, but moreso the GPF’s response in the immediate aftermath, left room for the careless, unfounded statements that helped to fuel the unrest that followed. Then that too was abominably handled, particularly last Tuesday when they indiscriminately fired on civilians using rubber bullets for no apparent reason. No amount of sports equipment and community enhancement doled out by the government will help communities view the force in a better light given these events. Sadly, neither the politicians nor those at the helm of the GPF seem to get this and until they do the cycle will continue.
