Our security sector would have been better off today

Jan 06, 2013 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Khemraj Ramjattan
AFC Leader

In the very early days of the PPP’s Administration, and against the grain as it were, I urged my colleagues in the leadership that there must be civilian oversight in the Guyana Police Force. Writings out from academia on the subject, and calls by reformist politicians in the UK and the Commonwealth for civilian oversight were very much the in-thing at the time.
A number of our top personalities, inclusive of Ian Mc Donald, Miles Fitzpatrick, J. Whitehead, Chris Ram, Schooner, Clairmont Lye, in 1994, also noticed the need for such oversight of the Police Force and formed a voluntary association called Guyanese Against Crime. Its purpose was at the core to offer civilian oversight, to seek international support towards this process, and to localise its monitoring of the Force’s activities.
This noble and worthy civic endeavour was smothered completely in its formative stage by the combined effort of a ruthlessly cunning Laurie Lewis and a Minister he commanded, the hapless Feroze Mohamed.
Our security sector has been the worse as a consequence of this abortion. I had recognised the danger of this development and without a blink penned a piece in the Stabroek News in early 1995. I reprint same here in view of the PPP Administration now coming around to understanding the need for civilian oversight of the Police Force some two decades after.

*****

“In Defence of Guyanese Against Crime: Civilian Oversight a Necessity”

Good and successful policing require the Police to procure and preserve the confidence of the public.  A community which has little trust in the police or is angered by policing policies will be reluctant to provide assistance in prevention and detection of crimes.
My experience in the Criminal Bar both as Prosecutor and Defence Counsel has taught me that the proportion of crimes solved by the police without help from members of the public is negligible.  A partnership between the police and the public is, thus, the fabric out of which a good police force is weaved.
A police chief who bears this in mind must ensure that he grabs at every opportunity which comes his way to meet and consider the views of members of the public, especially those members who have gone the length to associate as a body against crime.
Mr. Laurie Lewis, our Top Cop, missed the bus completely when he, instead of grabbing the opportunity to discuss the ugly crime scene in Guyana, rebuked the association called Guyanese Against Crime (G.A.C.).  And the arrogance and audacity with which he did it leaves me wondering as to his motive for so doing.  I have considered a whole host of motives. The one which stands out in my mind is that he is fearful of the Police Force, under his helm, being scrutinised.
The Guyanese Against Crime is not your ordinary policing community group which he can direct and control. These are not persons who would be instructed to form themselves into bands walking with batons at nights to preserve the peace.  Rather, they would question the personnel, the structures; in a word the institution of the police as it is presently constituted in its entirety, as is their right and duty.
But no says the Top Cop.  He is concerned with the way the G.A.C. is going about its business. How does the G.A.C. go about its business?  Just like every other civic association does. It issues press reports, meets with community organisations and foreign governments.  Tell me, in God’s name, what is wrong with conducting business in such a way?
Discussing police matters is not the exclusive right of the hierarchy of the Police Force or the Ministry of Home Affairs.  What is so delinquent about a concerned association discussing police matters with other associations and foreign governments and then being transparent in these activities by releasing press reports about them? Is it not justifiable for an association like the G.A.C. to do some groundwork to give itself credence, before it meets with the hierarchy of the police force or the Ministry of Home Affairs?  Any association which wants to earn its mettle will do as the G.A.C. did.
But no says the Top Cop.  ”I want to know your leader,” he demands.  I am aware that this question is never asked when a policing community group wants to meet with him.  He never attaches this conditionality, for he knows he is the leader.  But then the G.A.C. is not your ordinary policing group.  In any case, is there not a role for associations with a collective leadership in Guyana?
No says the Top Cop.  ”I want to know if you are properly constituted and registered,” he probes. Well this makes me hit the roof.  For over 10 years the Commissioner was the head of an organisation called the National Guard Service which dealt with millions and millions of dollars and hundreds of guns.  Was this organisation ever registered Mr. Commissioner?  Up to this day it is not.
The double standard and the hypocrisy continue in his rebuke: “The G.A.C. should have joined the Impact Advisory Committee.” Why does an association, obviously with fundamentally different views about improving the Police Force, have to join the Impact Advisory Committee before it is granted an opportunity to be heard by the Police Chief?  This approach is reminiscent of an authoritarianism which must be forever extirpated from our land.  The discretion to join or not to join is exclusively the G.A.C.’s! Why make the exercise of this right not to associate with the Impact Advisory Committee a condition precedent for not talking to the G.A.C.?  This will do no good in the partnership required for good policing because inherent in this policy is the subjective selection of who should be in partnership, when the correct policy should be all are partners.
Is it the case that since this Impact Advisory Committee is the brainchild of the Commissioner, then anyone who wants to discuss policing matters has to ingratiate into this Committee?  Could not an association in this democratic era stand up autonomously and independently of a brainchild of the Commissioner, and be heard?
This same argument in a like vein counters the second occurrence which forms the basis of the Top Cop’s scepticism of the G.A.C.  ”The Police must have membership in the G.A.C.,” he pleads. The G.A.C. rightly did not respond to this request.  The G.A.C has a right to accept who it wants in its association.  I strongly feel that the Commissioner’s motive here is infiltration.  He wants to get at how much they know, of what they know, and how they are thinking.
The third occurrence, namely, the G.A.C. not participating in a march against crime, is nonsensical!  Mr Commissioner if you feel marches will solve the lamentable upsurge in crime you are being asinine!
Quite frankly, the Commissioner should reconsider his approach and take a far more responsible attitude towards genuine Guyanese who wish to contribute in their own way against crime. Contributors in this fight must not only do so on the Commissioner’s terms.  They must be allowed and tolerated on whatever their terms are; of course, keeping within the confines of the law.
The President of this country, Dr. Jagan, who I know to be a supreme democrat, understands this. Though I am certain it is indirect, His Excellency, President Jagan, counter-punched the Commissioner’s outburst against the G.A.C when he said: “I intend to bring all those concerned together to map out a strategy to deal with the growing crime problem”.  The President will not, I am absolutely certain, exclude the G.A.C. on the frivolous grounds proffered by the Commissioner.
I do hope the Commissioner takes a cue from the President and climbs out of the authoritarian enclave he helped to create and apparently still lives in.
Khemraj Ramjattan
Attorney at Law, MP (PPP)

*****

After writing this piece, I suffered my first disciplinary proceedings at the hands of the Executive Committee of the PPP. Luncheon, Reepu and Nokta were delegated to “arrest my misconduct in publicly being critical of the Commissioner and by extension the Minister of Home Affairs”.
I enjoyed the defence I put up against this silly claim. I then complained to Dr. Jagan who expressed much surprise at disciplinary proceedings taken against me. And then I never heard back from the trio.
But some months later, lo and behold, then Crime Chief Felix, now APNU Parliamentarian, walked into my office. He said he was instructed by the Commissioner of Police to put an allegation to me. He had already put it to my friend and drink-mate Rohan Singh. I said go ahead. And he alleged that “You, Khemraj Ramjattan, and Rohan Singh conspired to assassinate the Minister of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police at Natoo’s rumshop on ……”
The expletives were fast and furious, causing Felix to walk back to the door, saying “Mr. Ramjattan, I will make a note that you denied the allegation”.That brought an end to that episode.
There are serious lessons to be drawn from what happened here. The PPP must allow reasoned and reasoning voices to be heard, and give consideration to their messages. The other lesson for the PPP is, never seek to exile these voices away with fear and threats and expulsions.
Our security sector would have been better off today had there been civilian oversight since 1994. Two decades have been wasted.

---

---