The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) says Parliament should set up a board of Commissioners to decentralise the police force and make it less susceptible to political interference.

“We don’t know whether it is reality or not but there is a widespread perception that there is a politicisation of the office of Commissioner,” GBA representative Vic Puran told the Disciplined Forces Commission yesterday.

To solve the perception held by society the GBA wants the position of Commissioner done away with, in favour of a board of commissioners which would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. The head of this board would be a chief officer, vested with the Commissioner’s powers, who would perform the functions of the board between meetings. He would be accountable to the board and liable to removal by parliament upon a recommendation of the majority of board members.

Boards are also envisaged at a regional level where they would be nominated and constituted by each Regional Democratic Council, from which they would be independent once set up. The regional boards would be obliged to obey and carry out instructions and recommendations of the national board, applying the present command structure of the force.

Meanwhile, the GBA recommends that the role of the Minister of Home Affairs be primarily the formulation of policy on the advice of a board comprised by officials from each of the administrative regions.

“The idea is essentially to insulate the Minister from the day to day operations of the Police Force,” Puran told the members of the Commission.

The Commission was constituted by Parliament to review the disciplined forces and make recommendations for their improvement.

It is chaired by Justice of Appeal Ian Chang and 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.

“What about when the Board expires and you can’t get a two-thirds majority to appoint it?” Justice Chang asked.

“The Chief Officer continues to function even if there is no Board. He is capable of continuing.” Puran responded.

“Then why put a Board if the man is capable of continuing without a Board?” asked Chang who considered that another potential danger of the proposal was the situation where the Board itself might not agree.

“Well, the essence of that argument,” Puran said, “...is that we are not ready for democracy.”