The power of discretion is inseparable from the exercise of the general powers of arrest

Nov 02, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee published the Section 17 (1) and Subsection (2) of the Police Act to buttress his argument against scrutiny of law enforcement by the Opposition.

Mr. Rohee seeks to justify certain police modus operandi that raise eyebrows and questions from those on the other end of the continuum of power by drawing attention to the fact that the Guyana Police Force enjoys wide and extensive powers beyond those enjoyed by counterpart forces in many First World democracies.

But the nuance in this subject matter that escapes the reasoning of the good minister is the fact that the Power of Discretion cannot be separated from the exercise of the General Powers of Arrest.

I just wish that the good minister was as appreciative of, and would respond with, the same level of alacrity when it comes to the letter of the law as it relates the rights of those currently on the other end of the power continuum in Guyana.

For example, ‘law’ is defined as “a rule of human conduct enforced by the state through its authority, the courts”.

Ironically, when mutilated and dead bodies of men who, by establishment opinion, were suspected of criminal activities were turning up all over the place, the kind of consciousness expressed for that part of the law that deals with police powers to arrest was not triggered by these outrageous violations of due process and the authority of the courts.

Are we to infer that the good minister is partial only to those aspects of the law that perceptually rationalise some law enforcement behaviours, and are disinterested in those that seek to guarantee the rights and freedoms of the populace?

In the same vein, Mr. Robert Persaud’s euphemistic description of the force used on people in law enforcement custody as “roughing up” speaks to the wide disparity between what the law directs and what is conveniently being pushed onto the mindsets of the public by some officials.

I wonder if Mr. Persaud would publish that portion of the Police Act that authorises law enforcement to “rough up suspects”?

According to my understanding, force is only allowable under the law when the officer or officers are unable to secure an arrest without resort to it. Under no circumstances are the police authorised to “rough up” suspects in order to secure evidence of a crime.

And what is mind boggling about all of this is that, if you go back 17 years or thereabouts, the same people making these wild assertions were vociferously castigating the very same police force over their perceptions that they were engaging in this same kind of behaviour. Talk about a metamorphosis among George Orwell-like revolutionaries.

The Mirror newspaper, the political organ of the ruling regime, constantly condemns the practice of collective punishment when the victims are Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the authorities are Israelis. Palestinian militants use the Gaza Strip as a launching point for firing Katyusha rockets into Israel.

The Israeli Government’s rationale and justification for its policies and reaction seem to be taking shape in an emerging dialecticism from certain quarters in Guyana.

The Israeli Government claims that the individuals and groups behind the rocket assaults are dangerous terrorists.

They claim that the citizens of the Gaza Strip give succor and shelter to these radical elements, and thus are just as guilty.

They syllogistically conclude that since the citizens do not turn over the militants to Israeli officials, or inform on them, responsibility for the acts of those militants justifiably attaches itself to the general populace of the Gaza Strip.

The question is why does the punditry of the ruling regime in Guyana rail against collective punishment when the victims are Palestinians and the authorities are Israelis, while performing acrobatic feats of logic to justify similar happenings home in Guyana? But that question is purely rhetorical.

The job of law enforcement is not easy, and not every one can mold him/ herself to fulfill the standard of fairness and objectivity required by that institution.

It does not help when civilian political leadership panders to the worse that will always emerge from time to time.

When Tain erupted in protest against local lawmen, blocked roadways and lit fires in public, every effort was made by the political directorate to appease the residents of that village.

Examine the reaction from these same quarters when there are similar eruptions from residents of Agricola, Bare Root or Buxton.

What surreal universe are we living in that the stark disparities that exist in the attitude and behaviour of the Government in its response to complaints against law enforcements seem to have become the sacred of all sacred cows?

I agree with the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs that it is lawful for the police “to arrest or detain anyone found lying or loitering in any highway, yard or other place”, and who is unable to give a satisfactory account to the ranks in question.

But you can find that kind of behaviour among male youths all over Guyana, including villages like Port Mourant, Parika, Leguan etc.

Youths have always been gathering in the streets and other places in villages and communities for activities that have nothing to do with criminality.

I am sure that experience is not one that the minister himself missed out on when he was a youth in Guyana. It has been a cultural tradition in our nation from time immemorial, especially in communities where there is a paucity of recreational alternatives for youths.

And we have to become intolerant to this ludicrous proposition that someone is a criminal because a political figure or a policeman labels them thus, especially when people of more suspect character are not subjected to the same kind of judgmental defining.

Neither the Minister of Home Affairs nor the Commissioner of Police is vested with the legal authority to determine who is a criminal. That authority rests with the courts.

This practice of excusing or defending perceived excesses of law enforcement with comments of “these people are known criminals”, or “these people are engaged in criminality” manifests a kind of hubris that is clearly not defendable in any balanced democracy.

I am kind of surprised that the press has not picked up on it, and in fact have become echoes of the same disjointed and stereotypical reasoning and assumptions.

Mr. Editor, like many of my country kinfolk, I stand firmly committed to the rule of law in Guyana, but to the manifested appearance of equality of everyone under its guiding principles, as set out in statutes and the constitution.

Neither one’s politics or race, ethnicity or social and economic status should subject one to favour or affection, malice or ill-will under the law.

A basic commonsensical understanding will bring anyone to the view that, unless the law is seen to work for the worse among us, it will not work for the best among us when we require it so to do.

This childish preponderance of accusations against those who scrutinize and critique the behaviour of law enforcement does not exist only in Guyana.

And the people in and of Guyana, among whom it has seemingly become fashionable to equate such scrutiny and critique with support of criminality, are no different in terms of mindset and motive than their peers in the US and elsewhere where it also exists.

Amazingly, the very same people who are most vociferously accusative against those who critique the conduct of the force are not shy about calling out officials in the US and Israel over what they defend in Guyana. Can anything be more hypocritical than this?
Robin Williams

---

---