One would have thought that given the widespread interest in the International Criminal Court (ICC) that the Guyana Government would have ensured that everything done in respect of it was transparent and in keeping with previous commitments.

The signing on Thursday of the agreement with the US exempting American servicemen from prosecution by the ICC fell far short of this and President Jagdeo and his Ministry of Foreign Affairs have much explaining to do.

In July of this year, at a press conference following a summit of Caricom heads in Jamaica, President Jagdeo was forthright in declaring his government's intent to sign the so-called Article 98 agreement with Washington because of the need to preserve crucial US military assistance and defence cooperation. Given Guyana's vulnerability to the drugs trade, cross-border crime and border issues not many Guyanese would have opposed the President's view on this issue though it raised fundamental concerns about the unity of Caricom and the prospect that the ICC could be fatally undermined by such agreements even before it gets underway next year.

At the very press conference, the President entered one caveat: the Article 98 agreement would not be signed with the United States until the Rome Statute underpinning the ICC was ratified by Parliament. That ratification has not occurred in the Guyana Parliament but nevertheless the Article 98 agreement has been concluded with the US. There are three problems here.

First, the President did not keep his word. It is a breach of public trust and he must explain this. Second, one would have thought that given the PPP/C's professed commitment to inclusive governance and bipartisanship that the recently established Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs would at least have been notified of this decision if not fully involved in discussions on it. This was not done. It mocks the seriousness with which these committees should be treated. The government is certainly free to take action on any issue without consulting with the opposition as it has won this right at elections. However, where obvious opportunities exist for the use of these bipartisan mechanisms and they are not utilised, the PPP/C government weakens its oft-expressed affinity for inclusiveness. Third, the signing of the Article 98 agreement before ratification of the Rome Statute sends a clear message that pre-eminence has been given to the exemption agreement with the US to the detriment of the ICC.

Other questions have arisen about the stealthy manner in which the agreement was signed. The US Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Stephen Rademaker paid a flying visit and signed the deal on Thursday. It was not until late Friday via a photograph from the Government Information Agency with a completely inadequate caption that it was realised that the agreement had been signed. Up to this point the only known event the media was involved in was Mr Rademaker's courtesy call on President Jagdeo. The media were invited for a photo opportunity only.

The media - Stabroek News included - clearly fell asleep during Mr Rademaker's visit. That, however, does not excuse the behaviour of the government. On Friday, a day after the agreement was signed, President Jagdeo was asked at his press conference about Mr Rademaker's visit. Not once did he reveal the primary purpose of the trip or that an agreement had been signed. This is perturbing as the President could not be unaware of the media's interest in this matter or the regional implications of the signing of the agreement.

As for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the same ministry which was unnecessarily mortified that this newspaper published details of a report on its shortcomings, its behaviour was quite unacceptable. The ministry industriously notifies the media of the most trivial events on the diplomatic calendar year in, year out. Yet this significant signing with a high-level official of the Bush administration was cloaked in a veil of secrecy. Following inquiries by this newspaper, a hurried press release was issued on Saturday, two days after the signing. The ministry, too, has much explaining to do.

Act on DFC report

Because we happen to be a nation with a penchant for commissioning reports only to have them immortalised on untouched shelves, it is important that the National Assembly begins establishing a framework for dealing with the reports of the Disciplined Forces Commission (DFC).

After all, the DFC is making its submissions to the highest law-making forum of the land and Parliament must therefore set the example. Moreover, the DFC is a product of the extra-parliamentary engagement between the President and the Opposition Leader and therefore presents a plum opportunity for bipartisan cooperation in the House. It should be further noted that the enabling motion for the commission's work was piloted through the National Assembly and it therefore has a special responsibility to breathe life into the DFC's findings and recommendations.

Mandated to produce an interim report to address weaknesses in the Guyana Police Force - the major subject of the commission's hearings thus far - the DFC has delivered and its report has since been tabled in the National Assembly.

It is now the responsibility of the parties in parliament to cobble together a motion for debate on the report and its recommendations. Ideally the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the agreed findings and managing the final report should be entrusted to one of the standing committees or a new one on crime and it should be called upon to demonstrate that this post-reform parliament isn't only about wooden speeches and endless acrimony but one that recognises its responsibilities and the need to do hard work in a spirit of compromise. It won't be a moment too soon. The country continues to be ravaged by a bloody orgy of executions, murders and robberies in the backdrop of clear signs of increased drug running and the rise of well-armed gangs.

The three key issues which emerged during the hearings of the DFC were the exasperating inability of the police force to rein in crime and protect villages on the East Coast, the high number of alleged extra-judicial killings by the police force and whether ethnic balancing of the force was necessary and if so how it should be accomplished.

In light of the extensive damage done to the collective peace of mind of the nation over the last two years or so, swift and decisive action is necessary. The interim DFC report calls for a five-year plan for the force; something that makes eminent sense but which also conjures up the image of bureaucratic sloth and further delays. If the DFC is to really impact on the lives of the average person, short-term confidence-building steps are essential right away.

These could include the immediate appointment of the commissioner-in-waiting, Winston Felix, the removal of policemen from desk jobs that civilians can undertake and their deployment on the streets, the boosting of the police presence in the frontline villages on the East Coast and in the city and vast improvements in ancillaries such as mobility in the case of emergencies and the number of working telephones. These suggestions have been made repeatedly and can be easily implemented within the ambit of the DFC findings and deliberations in Parliament.

Extra-judicial killings by the police and the cancerous growth of execution squads also need urgent attention. The protocol by which the police use deadly force in the apprehension or subduing of suspects and criminals definitely needs revising. This issue has been discussed extensively in the DFC interim report and Parliament is in pole position to address the arguments and to make the necessary constitutional and other changes that would more appropriately define when deadly force can be used. Thereafter it is up to the police force.

Dogged by the same problem, the Jamaican Police Force has recently announced changes in the rules governing the use of deadly force. As an interim measure, Parliament should seek to ensure more robust investigations of the police's conduct in a series of killings over the last two years. This would have to dovetail with proposed and long overdue changes to the Police Complaints Authority Act.