Mr Raphael Trotman and Mr Khemraj Ramjattan write a monthly column for our newspaper on subjects of their choice. Mr Trotman’s column appeared last week and Mr Ramjattan’s this week.
In an article published some eight years ago in defence of a voluntary association called Guyanese Against Crime, made up of some of our most distinguished patriots, the then Commissioner of Police came in for a severely biting commentary from me. Rather than use the occasion and points made to leverage some change, the then Minister of Home Affairs got more vexed about the critique than his Security Chief ever was. Moreover, my calls for the “pruning of all deadwood” from within and outside of the Administration, inclusive of the Police and other State institutions, were met with such a savage rebuff I was literally stunned, if not somewhat silenced.
I had then asserted that good and successful policing require the Police to procure and preserve the confidence of the Public. A society which has little trust in its Police Force or is angered and disillusioned by policing policies will be reluctant to provide assistance in prevention and detection of crime.
I even drew upon my experience in the Criminal Bar - both as Prosecutor and Defence Counsel - two lessons: that the proportion of crimes solved by the Police without help from members of the Public is negligible; and, that a partnership between the Police and the Public is the fabric out of which a stable secure society is weaved.
I argued that in a democratic society it is indeed something to support and nurture when a body made up of names like Ian Mc Donald, Miles Fitpatrick, Clairmont Lye, Josephine Whitehead, Schooner, Christopher Ram et al sets up a committee against crime; and posited that the questioning and discussing of matters relating to police and crime were not the exclusive preserve of the hierarchy of the Police Force or the Ministry of Home Affairs. The question was asked: What is so delinquent about such persons of the stated calibre forming an association, then asking questions and having discussions on police/crime matters, doing so with other interested associations, the Government and foreign organizations, and thereafter being transparent about these activities through reports to the public?
I concluded that this infant association, Guyanese Against Crime, was being shouted down by the leadership of the Police Force because of fear of being scrutinized.
This fear of scrutiny and the adoption of an attitude of not wanting to be scrutinised is not an attribute unique to the Guyana Police Force. Studies have revealed that many police forces in the Caribbean and Commonwealth detest and fight off interlopers treading into their territory and questioning their authority. Neither is this fear a trademark trait in Guyana of only this institution. Very many other institutions and structures of State power and private sector power get nervous and possessive of their jurisdiction whenever a process of scrutiny is called for or demanded. This fear must be banished lest our country be vanquished.
Especially urgently required then is the nurturing of an attitude of wanting to be scrutinized on the part of our Police Force. Its members, at both an individual and collective level, have huge powers. Unlike every other Guyanese, every policeman is authorized to make an on the spot, unilateral, irrevocable decision which can and, as has happened recently, does result in serious injury to or death of other Guyanese.
To be quite graphic about it, whenever one of them fires his gun the immediate consequence of his decision is realized at the rate of 800 (eight hundred) feet per second; and this consequence is irreviewable. Nothing can stop the destiny of that warhead; it cannot be recalled. In a sense then, a policeman carries in his holster more power than a Chief Justice can ever imagine having. Our Chief Justice, as he would concede, can have his decision, or any action taken thereafter, recalled and reviewed.
There are those who are capable of discretion and caution. But most of these possessors of this pure raw power, one of life and death, do not have academic and training qualifications and credentials anywhere close to those of a Chief Justice.
Now even if I am being a little unfair here, I hope my point is not missed.
The consequences for us all, if matters go unaddressed, will be dire indeed. There must be public scrutiny to find out what the wrongs are at a larger systemic level, and in individual cases. So that whatever these wrongs are, they can be remedied. This approach signally will dispel unenlightened speculation and malicious suspicions about the force and its policemen. Obviously, new standards will be set and wherever these are not met, those not meeting them will not go unpunished; nor will such actions go unaccounted for. Using the force as an authoritarian enclave and sheltering under it must not be allowed these days. Those days are long gone, I hope.
What days are here, or ought to be, are days where there must be an intense and rigorous supervision of the police force by both the Government and civilian agencies. Civilian oversight is mandatory because all Governments generally tend to go easy on their police force, or downright permit cover-ups occasionally. This was essentially what eight years ago the association, Guyanese Against Crime, had in mind - developing mechanisms for the systematic evaluation of the quality of police services, and becoming a body from civil society to provide civilian oversight over the police force which, by the way, is a form of inclusive governance.
But Guyanese Against Crime was stamped out of existence and so was every potential civilian organization which wanted to perform similar functions. Look what are the results! A police force unable to allay the public’s desperate need for safety.
But all of this can be put right if there is the initiation of at the very least one of the measures so clearly staring us in the face. Let us start a process of honest, thorough-going scrutiny, and thereafter an acceptance of responsibility wheresoever it falls, and move on.
This protects the integrity of a vital institution of State, and enhances the image of those who govern.