GTUC gives views on accountability for Police Force
Guyana Chronicle
October 6, 2003
THE Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC) is insisting that the Minister of Home Affairs should be held accountable for any improper conduct within the Police Force.
Presenting the GTUC views before the Defence Commission last week was Dr. Harold Lutchman, Consultant of both the Critchlow Labour College and the Guyana Trade Union Congress.
Defence Commissioner Mr. Charles Ramson asked, during his cross-examination, whether the Home Affairs Minister should be held responsible if the Police Force performed in a poor way.
"That is my understanding," was the Dr Lutchman's reply.
Professor Lutchman added that the Minister is assigned responsibility for an area and he is accountable and responsible.
He further pointed out to the Commissioners that 'accountable' means answerable to Parliament and those who appointed him.
In an effort to better illustrate his point, the Professor Lutchman argued that although the Minister might not have done anything wrong, he should still be held answerable, or be made to offer an explanation. Ultimately, Lutchman said, if there is no improvement in the situation, then the Minister should resign.
The Minister can give general directions up to a certain level, Dr Lutchman insisted. This statement apparently prompted Commissioner Mr. David Granger to ask; in a situation where an operation has failed due to a breach by a Police rank, could the Home Affairs Minister order an inquiry?
The Professor said 'yes', but added that the Minister's involvement must not be operational.
"The Minister is accountable whether or not he is directly responsible. We have not practised that in Guyana, and we do not have a single case (maybe that's being a bit too wide) where a Minister was called on to resign based on this," he asserted.
Professor Lutchman's statement that the Minister does not have "command functions" was not readily approved by Commissioner Ramson, who felt that the presenter should be more focused on the line of questioning.
Commissioner Ramson then presented a hypothetical case. A large and unruly crowd is gathered in front of a building, which housed several prominent diplomats. In a while, the Home Affairs Minister passes by and observes the situation. Realising that the situation holds the potential of causing some level of international embarrassment, the Minister calls the Commissioner of Police, and alerts him about the developments. The Commissioner responds by saying he sees no need for sending security personnel to break up the mob. At this point, the Minister insists that a posse of Policemen be dispatched there.
Ramson then posed the question, "How would you classify such a situation?"
Dr Lutchman, after some moments of thought, said that such a scenario would not be viewed as political interference.
When questioned on the supposed initial reluctance of the Commissioner to respond, the presenter stated that in his view it was a 'judgment call'.
Chairman of the Commission Mr. Ian Chang also touched on that issue during his question session. Professor Lutchman stated that the Minister should give general directives he should not issue specific instructions such as ordering the dismissal of an officer or taking the SWAT team to invade an area. (Shirwin Campbell)