SOCU was set up in 2013 as a specialised unit within the Guyana Police Force to investigate allegations and reports in respect of money laundering and terrorism. It was a response to Guyana’s international obligations to strengthen its Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism apparatus. Like other sections of the GPF it answers to the Commissioner of Police, although it has been said that its head does not report to him unless there is a matter requiring that a member of the Force be charged. In other words it functions effectively as an autonomous body.
It is headed by Assistant Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh, who is not noted as a specialist in the field of forensic auditing, and who does not seem to have a staff complement similarly qualified. In June last year it was reported that SOCU had recruited extra staff in this area to assist it discharge its obligations under the money-laundering act, but for all of that it has not given the impression of being any more effective in the execution of its duties than it was before. It was retired Assistant Commissioner Clinton Conway in a letter to this newspaper some time ago who asked rhetorically with an added note of humour: “When last did SOCU conduct a proper investigation and had a successful prosecution in Court, apart from one case where a Nigerian surprisingly pleaded guilty to a fraud charge?”
The unit certainly comes across to the public as an arm of the Force not answerable to the hierarchy of the latter, but to political masters. If that is so, then we have been down that road before. Certainly its extraordinary blunders aside, it comes most frequently to public attention when targeting members of the opposition – and this applies to all governments since 2013.
The most disturbing problem in relation to SOCU, however, is that it seems out of control, acting in defiance of the law, in defiance of the Constitution and in defiance of the rules governing police behaviour. In a recent letter to Stabroek News retired Assistant Commissioner Paul Slowe recounted how he attended the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on October 15, 2021 in response to a summons which had been secured by Superintendent Krishnadat Ramana of SOCU to answer what he described as a “trumped up” charge of conspiracy to commit fraud.
He went on to say: “On my arrival Ramana and other ranks from SOCU were there to unlawfully arrest me for the same matter that caused me to be there. He also stated that he wanted to arrest me to caution me after charge, which as a former senior police officer I found to be outrageous. The entire sordid incident was captured by members of the media and streamed live for the world to see.” He went on to remark, “It must be noted that despite the reports, the display of ignorance of the law and incompetence, Ramana was promoted from the rank of Assistant Superintendent to Superintendent, skipping the rank of Deputy Superintendent and superseding many others who were more competent and knowledgeable.”
Mr Slowe wrote that he made a report about being assaulted at Brickdam Police Station by the officers concerned, and provided a detailed statement about the incident. Nothing came of it, he said. He also made a report to the Police Complaints Authority, and when invited to meet the PCA in the presence of Constable Shaquel Duke and Superintendent Ramana the two refused to cooperate with the authority. The latter then said their conduct would be reported to the Police Commissioner. Not unsurprisingly, perhaps, nothing more has been heard of it since.
Since no action was taken against the officers in this incident, it would hardly come as a shock that they finally committed a violation which brought them not just to national, but to international attention. SOCU obviously thinks it is answerable to nobody, or at least to the regular authorities. On this occasion they arrested an attorney because of the advice she had given to her client. It has left all those with even a smidgeon of legal knowledge living in common law jurisdictions across the Commonwealth absolutely open-mouthed.
The case involved Ms Tamieka Clarke who was representing a client on computer fraud-related charges. She related that following his arrest on a Friday he was presented with a statement which the officers wanted him to sign. She informed Constable Duke she had advised him not to sign. Later they were instructed to return to SOCU headquarters the following Tuesday. Arriving at the appointed time they encountered Superintendent Ramana (yes, the same Ramana involved in the Slowe matter) and he advised that they come back on Thursday. She told him that would not be a problem but that her client had been advised, and would not be giving a statement. Superintendent Ramana then responded, “Do you know what is obstruction, under rule one your client is compellable.”
If this ignorance of the law is beyond belief, it turns out the Superintendent was not finished. “You and your client are going to come back on Thursday at 1 pm and if your client does not give a statement on Thursday at 1 pm, I will arrest you,” Ms Clarke quoted him as saying. When she questioned the officer, she said his reply was, “Counsel, all I can advise you is that counsel will need counsel.” It might be remarked that by now he should have discovered who will really need counsel.
As if all of this was not enough disgrace for the body in the space of a few days, its officers managed to top it all when attorney and client appeared at headquarters as instructed, and the latter refused to sign the statement. Ms Clarke quoted Superintendent Ramana as saying to the officers in the room: “Is she preventing her client from giving a statement, is she preventing her client from giving a statement? Speak up, y’all tell me, is she preventing her client from giving a statement, arrest her.” She was then arrested for obstruction.
Not only is Superintendent Ramana ignorant of the provisions of the Constitution, Article 144(7) of which states, “No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial,” it seems he has also never heard of the rule of law and has no notion of what constitutes its breach. And this from a senior member of the police force. It is quite clear he is in the wrong profession, or is living in the wrong country. Even the Attorney General appears to have been taken aback, since he intervened and did apologise to her.
As it is there has been a storm of outrage from local as well as international bodies. The Guyana Bar Association and Guyana Association of Women Lawyers wasted no time in condemning the action of the SOCU officers. And they have been joined by the Caribbean Bar Association and other regional Bar Associations, and now the Organisation of Commonwealth Bar Associations as well as the Commonwealth Lawyers Association. And still there has been not a formal word from the government, let alone the Commissioner of Police, President Irfaan Ali’s own personal choice for the post. Is it another indirect admission he really has no control over SOCU, and that that unit falls under political purview?
The Guyana Bar Association in response to the unlawful action said: “The Rule of Law and the fundamental right to Counsel are stated to be hallmarks of a democratic society. Today the actions of the members of the Guyana Police Force’s Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU) towards our colleague, Ms. Tamieka Clarke, Attorney-at-Law sought to destroy these foundations of our democracy.”
For its part the Commonwealth Lawyers Association made reference to the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the Eighth UN Congress in 1990. That states, “Governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” Well if Superintendent Ramana hasn’t yet read the Constitution, he surely will not have read the UN’s Basic Principles.
The Guyana Bar Association called on the Police Commissioner to issue an apology to Ms Clarke and compensate her for her unlawful imprisonment. In addition it wants a full investigation launched with the necessary disciplinary action being swiftly enforced, including charges being laid against the offending officer(s), and the termination of any officer(s) who was aware of and allowed this type of conduct.
No rational person would have any quarrel with these proposals, but one cannot help but feel that given the fact SOCU is consistently violating the rule of law, and that it appears to operate outside the ambit of the Guyana Police Force, it is time to disband it altogether, and create a professional unit staffed by appropriately qualified members answerable to the police hierarchy. The unit is behaving in a rogue fashion, and we have had unsettling experiences of that kind of thing before. While opposition members and government opponents of one kind or another may be subject to legitimate investigations from time to time, a truly professional body will be guided by the evidence, not by what are perceived to be political considerations.
The officers of SOCU clearly thought they had political cover to do what they want; but not this time.
The Jamaica Bar Association had this to say: “This gross encroachment by the state has the result of undermining the rule of law and we shall remain carefully attentive in this cause.” The government should be advised: all legal bodies both inside and outside the country will remain carefully attentive in this and related matters.
