Aside from giving bargaining rights, unionising the Police Force would also enhance its independence which has been compromised by political interference.

So argued Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) President Patrick Yarde and Industrial Relations consultant Leslie Melville at yesterday’s Disciplined Forces Commission hearing, adding that members of the police force and the other disciplinary services already benefit indirectly from union representation.

The Commission is tasked with investigating the operations of the disciplined services, including the Guyana Police Force, the army, the Guyana Prison Services and the Guyana Fire Service. Priority is being given to the review of the Police Force, and the commission is to submit a report of its findings to the National Assembly within the next six weeks.

Justice of Appeal Ian Chang chairs the Commission which includes former Attorney General Charles Ramson, SC, former National Security Adviser, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger, attorney-at-law, Anil Nandlall and Irish human rights activist, Maggie Beirne.

The recommendations of the union are: for the appointment of the Commissioner of Police for the restoration of professionalism within the GPF; for the unionising of the GPF as well as the other disciplined services; the improved remuneration and a better quality of training and conditions of employment; for structural enforcement and no political interference; for the improvement of the relationship between police/disciplined services and the community; for the review of all extra-judicial killings for possible legal action; and for the withdrawal\recall of all firearms from the public and the establishment of a proper criteria for issuance of weapon licences.

“‘All disciplined forces should be unionised.’ When you say this, do you refer to your union?” Yarde was asked by Nandlall.

“No. Whether they form their own union or form an alliance with an existing union... my initial point [was] that they should have a union unto themselves.”

“Do you see this as affecting the independence you propose?”

“I see it as enhancing it,” said Yarde who went on to argue that the independence of the force was further impeded by the absence of a substantive Commissioner of Police.

Granger pointed out to Yarde that the atrocities described by the GPSU from 1993 to present were committed under a substantive commissioner, referring to retired Commissioner Laurie Lewis.

But Yarde in reply quoted the former Commissioner as having uttered; “if the Minister of Home Affairs wants to be commissioner, he can put on the uniform,’ which he said conveyed clearly the level of political interference.

Justice Chang challenged this contention by asking Yarde to consider whether those words by the Commissioner of Police were in actual fact indicative of his independence.

“Don’t you think the commissioner was demonstrating his operational independence?”

Yarde disagreed, saying he had interpreted the statement to be aimed at sensitising the public to the situation. He added that negotiations with the then commissioner had also exhibited this interference and alluded to his inability to make firm decisions on behalf of the force.

Among the other weaknesses identified by Yarde were the conditions of service to which members were subjected, which he said needed to be significantly improved. This could also benefit the force by attracting recruits of a higher quality who might now be disinclined to enlist because of the present inadequate pay.

Although on this point, he also considered that criteria should be put in place to ensure that the force was made up of professionals.

This view was further reinforced by Melville, who argued in similar vein when confronting the issue of the ethnic balance of the forces which are comprised of a majority of Afro-Guyanese.

Melville said while the balance was desirable, mechanisms for its implementation were not realistic in the short or medium-term, without resulting in some form of racial discrimination.

While unable to outline the mechanism through which this could be implemented, he noted that it should not be done to the exclusion of any other ethnic groups.

He said the ethnic imbalance in the forces was inherently historical, and should not be analysed in isolation, noting that a similar imbalance exists in the ownership of agricultural lands, where Indo-Guyanese had a near monopoly.

Historically, he argued, the environment existent in these forces were not apt for persons who were not acquainted with such a culture, particularly those from rural communities.

Defending the GPSU’s proposal that the disciplined services be allowed trade union representation, he drew attention to the fact that they already benefitted from the gains made for the public service by the GPSU, to which they did not contribute.

When confronted by Chang to weigh if the constitutional provision guarding against the force’s association with unions was framed in the interest of the public, Melville, like Yarde before him, noted that this could be conditional.

Moreover, he held that the rights to freedom of association and to bargain collectively for benefits were fundamental and were being denied to members of the force.