Open defence of lawlessness

Feb 12, 2015 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
How could the Public Service Commission defend indefensible behaviour?
I am left to wonder under which rock the Public Service Commission and the Commissioner of Police reside? I ask for their resignation with immediate effect.
The United Nations Convention against Torture, of which Guyana ratified in 1988 states, “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”
What the two now-promoted police officers were before the court for (intent to maim, disfigure, disable or cause grievous bodily harm – by burning the genitals of a teenager) is unlawful in any jurisdiction.
The heroic findings of Judge Roxanne George-Wiltshire substantiated their liability, describing their actions as “degrading, humiliating and debasing.”
“The torture and cruel inhuman treatment meted out to Twyon Thomas has demonstrated and established an absolute and flagrant disregard for his (Twyon Thomas’) constitutional rights.” She awarded GY$6.5 million to the violated teenager.
This money was taxpayers’ money, the state paid out of general revenue. No money was paid by the two officers. The withholding of half month’s pay does not equal GY$6.5 million.
This fact is blatantly omitted by the PSC Chairman who seems unaware, that once these officers’ cases were dismissed in the court of law as a result of the inexplicable absence of the victim in court, these officers would have received their full compensation retroactive to the institution of the date of being charged. Honesty is the best policy and dishonesty is no road to prosperity.
After the dismissal of the criminal charge and conclusion of the civil cases, a police tribunal should have been constituted by the Commissioner of Police, if he had any interest in preserving the credibility of the Guyana Police Force. The Commissioner of Police needs to do his job as set out in the Police Act.
In essence, no punitive sanction has been received by these two officers. The only sanction dispensed was the demotion of the officer in charge at the station at the time of the incident. Therefore, this injustice must be repudiated.  These officers do not deserve a place on the force moreso a ranking position.
If PSC and its chairman think these officers are “outstanding” then I suggest their lack of sense of justice and fairness is self evident and should no longer continue to serve on such an august body.
I would like to know;
Why these officers were considered for continued employment by the state.
What awards for good policing these officers received in the last two years?
What distinguishing and exceptional skills do they possess, that no other officer of equal rank with similar education and length of service, as well as, longer service, who never had such damning accusations made against them, to merit promotion above their comrades?
Why was the UN Convention on torture ignored?
Justice is for all!  No exceptions! And this continued farce by the PSC and the Commissioner of Police, has brought disrepute to the entire Police force and nation. There is no precedence for pardon for officers committing vile acts, by the PSC.
If then the standards of pardon applied in a comment attributed to PSC chairman, Omesh Satyanand is correct when he stated, “We should not hold something against someone because they would have committed something wrong…even though you have served the time for it and I think the public should understand that.
From our record, he has been an outstanding policeman for over two decades and we have taken that into consideration.”, (pg 3, SN 24/01/2015)  I would like to know if by the same token all citizens are beneficiaries of this pardon?
I ask for directions to the clause of the Police Act that directs such a pardon for such a grave transgression?
If this is the case, why was Inspector Alwyn Hoyte not the beneficiary of such a pardon but humiliated and stripped of his promotion and demoted to Sergeant shortly after his ascension to a higher rank?
Article 4 of the UN Convention on torture states;
“Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”
The gravity of this action is not missed. So, I add my condemnation of the PSC, the Commissioner of Police, and the Minister of Home Affairs, for not taking appropriate action to purge the Police Force of those who committed torture and are in the mindset to commit torture.
Are the aforementioned officials aware of Article 10 of the UN Convention on torture which states, “Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.”
If they are aware of this Article and the requisite training was received by the officers who violated it, what appropriate punishment did they receive from the Police tribunals mandated by Police Act 17:01?
The Police Act 17.02 (7) Schedule of acts or omission by any member of the Police force constituting misconduct states, “Being guilty of any unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority that is to say—
(iii) using any unnecessary violence to any prisoner, or other person with whom he may be brought into contact in the execution of his duty” is punishable.
The unlawful acts by the two officers pale in comparison to that of an officer who had a uniform violation or was found intoxicated on duty, yet, they go unpunished.
Any rank above them, including the Commissioner of Police, could have instituted the charge of discreditable conduct against these officers.
To add insult to injury, the Commissioner of Police, who failed to act in this case, emerges to thumb his nose at the population, with insensitive commentary of ”No departmental charges were recommended,” “life must go on”.
The question then is, on whose recommendation was it that no charges be laid and why the Commissioner of Police or his assistants or deputies failed to act in accordance with the Police Act?
We cannot progress and build an equitable society with individuals such as these who essentially defy the laws of Guyana.
This parade of appointments of inappropriate persons who do not understand what is required of them in critical positions of judgement is coming home to roost. Their open defence of the lawless proves they are lacking the fibre associated with upholding law and constitutional mandates. This leaves one to wonder: who is the vanguard of a safe Guyana?
It’s time we advance the cause of justice.  Law-abiding citizens are disgusted and cannot understand or accept this incompetence.
Louis Nestor

---

---