“It is therefore ironic that the killing of this teenager by the Police has occurred just as the National Assembly will finally discuss, (tomorrow, Thursday 9 June 2010) the Motion to adopt the report of the Disciplined Service Commission. Is the Guyana Police Force sending a signal that they are a Law unto themselves

The debate in the National Assembly on that motion and the conduct of the police on the very day the motion was debated, clearly illustrate that there continues to be a wide gap between the actual performance by the GPF and the expectations of their performance under their motto to serve and protect.

After seven years, there is no evidence that the PPP/C Administration is serious about the implementation of the more than one hundred and fifty recommendations of the Disciplined Services Commission Report. This fact was evident as the National Assembly debated the Motion on Thursday, June 10, 2010 to accept the report of the Select Committee on that Report. The PNCR had argued since 2004 that it was not necessary to have a Select Committee consider the report.

What was more important was for the Government to immediately implement those recommendations that would influence the improved professionalism and performance of the GPF and restore confidence in this important national institution. Instead, the Government, in their usual mode of procrastination, insisted that before the report was acted upon the National Assembly was required to deliberate on its recommendations.

In hindsight, the intention of the PPP was obvious. It took almost seven years before the report, after being dragged through the tedious process of further deliberation, was finally accepted by the Parliament.

The decision to appoint a Disciplined Services Commission, DSC, was one of the first agreements between the Jagdeo Administration and the PNCR under the leadership of the Leader of the PNCR and Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Robert Corbin. The agreement was preceded by continuous public demonstrations and protests over the alarming rate of extra-judicial killings by ranks of the Guyana Police Force.

The fatal shooting of Tshaka Blair at 4:00 AM in his home at Buxton by Inspector Steve Merai; the notorious killing of the Mandela trio after they were already apprehended by Supt. Leon Fraser and Inspector Steve Merai; the slaying of University of Guyana Student, Yohance Douglas on Sheriff Street; the hundreds of dead bodies of young African men discovered across the country; and, the many others who were executed in controversial circumstances by the infamous Black Clothes Squad, headed by then Police Officers, Supt. Fraser and Asst, Superintendent, Steve Merai, are among the events that motivated national outrage.

The Commission was appointed after the Leader of the Opposition nominated two representatives and the Government nominated three representatives, including the Chairman, Justice Ian Chang.

They commenced their work on July 1, 2003 to inquire into the Guyana Police Force, Guyana Defence Force, the Guyana Prison Service and the Guyana Fire Service in order to identify their shortcomings and to recommend remedies to respond to the public safety crisis.

The final report was presented to the Speaker of the National Assembly on May 6, 2004, including the Minority Report of Ms. Maggie Byrne, who had differing views on several of the recommendations. After the report was laid before the National Assembly on May 17, and accepted unanimously, the PPP/C insisted that it should still be sent to a Select Committee, which was established on November 4, 2004.

The mandate was that the Select Committee should report to the National Assembly in four months. The four months became almost seven years and stretched over the life of two Parliaments. Yet, after such procrastination, the level of professionalism of the GPF remains questionable.

This is obvious since the circumstances, which gave rise to the appointment of the Commission appear to be on the rise again.

PNCR Members of Parliament, Ms. Deborah Backer and Mr. Basil Williams exposed the fallacy presented by Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds that his Government had addressed many of the recommendations highlighted in the report. It was evident that the most important ones had been ignored.

These include, improved remuneration for officers as well as the working conditions; improved training; ethnic imbalance in the joint services; and Parliamentary oversight of the services. In addition, the refusal of the Government to accept some of the recommendations is instructive. Among them is the refusal to removal political involvement in the granting of firearm licences. The recent legislation passed which allowed the Minister to pronounce on the granting of firearm licences and the decision to allow ranks of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) to make arrests were completely contrary to what was recommended.

Of significance too was the refusal of the Administration to deal with the issues in a holistic way as emphasized in the Security Sector Reform Project. Many of the recommendations were not dependent on Finance but on political will and the fact that the PPP/C has refused to act exposes their sincerity.

The PNCR, while supporting the Motion to adopt the Report of the Select Committee, could have no confidence that the Government would be moved to fully implement the many recommendations: Another example of the bad faith that has characterized the Jagdeo Administration.

Moreover, the conduct of ranks of the Force in the last week illustrate that the recommendations have been honoured in the breach. The conduct of the police in killing Kelvin Anthony Fraser and their response to the natural and justifiable outrage by students and citizens are worthy of analysis.

It would have been expected that, since it was the unprofessional behaviour of the police in killing a sixteen-year-old student, which gave rise to the tense situation, the GPF would have shouldered the responsibility to appease the situation, restore normalcy and demonstrate concern for the students and the family of the victim. Instead of restoring law and order, however, the police were clearly guilty of incitement to breach the peace and of breaching the fundamental rights of Guyanese citizens.

Students and residents of West Demerara were engaged in protest activities at West Demerara since the gruesome killing of Kelvin Anthony Fraser and the brutal mistreatment of other youths of the area by the police. This protest action could not be unexpected.

Similar protests have occurred in Guyana at previous such incidents and such occurrences have taken place in many countries of the world in similar circumstances. The demands of the protestors were not unreasonable. They were demanding justice as citizens: Urgent disciplinary proceedings against the ranks that carried out the acts and adequate compensation for the families.

Statements from the hierarchy of the Guyana Police and the Government have so far provided no assurance that the incident would be properly investigated. The failure by the PPP/C Administration to act responsibly in the past is not unknown to those citizens and this has obviously contributed to the loss of confidence.

For example, Guyanese still remember the fate of University of Guyana student, Yohance Douglas who was fatally shot by the police on Mandela Avenue several years ago. Bullets also seriously injured three of his schoolmates. Despite the public statements that justice would have been served, the accused soon walked free. It did not come as a surprise to many.

It was public knowledge that, before the trial had concluded, the accused persons, who were supposed to have been incarcerated, were allowed out of the Georgetown prison to walk freely around the city.

Similarly, the citizens have not forgotten the fate of twenty-three-year-old Dweive Kant Ramdass who was murdered by the disciplined forces in the Essequibo River; the hundreds of other Guyanese youth who were victims of extra-judicial killing; and, the activities of the “phantom squad” in Guyana, which the Guyana Government refuses to have investigated despite calls from the United Nations.

Statements of intention by the Police or Government will have no meaning until and unless there is evidence of action. Consequently, the students and residents are entitled to exercise their rights to protest as guaranteed by the Constitution. It appears that members of the Guyana Police Force, so accustomed to the flagrant breaches of the laws of Guyana by the PPP/C, have forgotten or refuse to accept that the Constitution of Guyana guarantees citizens of Guyana this right. Indicative of this contempt, is the extensive police barriers around the public buildings when the National Assembly is in session that interferes with the right of citizens to peacefully demonstrate when their representatives are expected to meet and deliberate on their welfare.

On Thursday, the students moved their protest from West Demerara to Brickdam. They were prevented from being close to the Public Buildings or the Ministry of Home Affairs: the Ministry accountable to Parliament for the Guyana Police Force.

The Police forced the protestors further down Brickdam, thus creating a crowd. They arrested one of the truck drivers that assisted in transporting the students from West Demerara and impounding his vehicle in the police compound at Brickdam. While the police may have exercised their legitimate right to charge the driver for breach of Insurance, they failed to place him on bail for a simple bailable offence.

It was obvious that the objective was not law enforcement but intimidation by deprivation of Maniram’s property, his source of livelihood, in breach of Article 142 of the Constitution of Guyana. That article states, “No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except by or under the authority of a written law and where provision applying to that taking of possession or acquisition is made by a written law requiring the prompt payment of adequate compensation.”

There are exception but none fall within the reasons advanced by the Police for the seizure of Maniram’s Canter truck.

On the intervention of the Opposition Leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, acting as the driver’s Attorney-at-Law, the Police eventually placed the driver on $10,000 bail, which was promptly posted. The driver was then released and allowed to leave the Brickdam Police Station with his vehicle.

Meanwhile, minibuses had been mobilized to take the stranded students back to West Demerara. In full view of the protesting students who were relieved after seeing the release of their driver, a Police Officer promptly re-arrested the driver and ordered the vehicle back to the Police Brickdam compound.

It was obvious that such action would incense a tense crowd. Pandemonium broke out as the students and others rushed to the entrance to the Brickdam Police Station. The crowd response was predictable, as any Officer experienced in law enforcement ought to have known. The presence of Mr. Mark Benschop, perhaps, further infuriated the police. He was promptly arrested and placed in the Brickdam lockup without bail.

By the next day, the single cause for his arrest had multiplied to five additional charges.

At the Brickdam Police Station, it took further intervention by Counsel for the driver who was already on bail to be released but the Police impounded his vehicle that was earlier released by them.

It was not until 8:30 PM that evening, again after the intervention of Counsel, for the Police to finally fix bail for Mark Benschop but at the exorbitant amount of $100,000. Clearly, the intention was to imprison him overnight. Fortunately, a public-spirited citizen posted bail for him and he was released after 9:00PM.

It does not take an expert to conclude that the actions by the police were deliberately provocative and not intended to promote the peace. On whose instructions were the police acting. It was obvious to all observers including, Attorney-at-Law for the arrested persons, that the police officers on the scene were not in charge of decision-making. Every action and decision had to be cleared “at the top”.

The unprofessional and irresponsible conduct of members of the Guyana Police Force on Thursday 10 June, 2010 at a peaceful and legitimate protest on Brickdam by students and residents of West Demerara, over the incident must be condemned, therefore, by all right thinking Guyanese.

Ultimately, it is the Commissioner of Police who is accountable and he would do well to heed the advice of his retiring Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Paul Slowe. The PNCR again condemns this recent outrage and calls for urgent disciplinary action as well as adequate and full compensation to the family of the victim.

The jury is still out on the question: Will the 150-odd recommendations of the Disciplined Services Commission ever be implemented to improve the quality and performance of the Guyana Police Force?