IT’S SIMPLY NOT RIGHT!

Feb 15, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Political expediency is trumping principles these days. This is no better illustrated than in the stance taken by opposition forces in relation to the promotion of two members of the Guyana Police Force who were allegedly implicated in the torture of a teenager, years ago.
I say, allegedly, because these persons were placed before the courts on criminal charges but were never convicted. The case reportedly fell down on the basis that witnesses did not turn up to give evidence. We can say, therefore, that while the charges against the accused were not proven, they were equally not disproved.
A person not convicted cannot be said to be a convict, can they?  This is regardless of the opinion one may hold about those persons. This is the first principle that seems to have escaped the attention of the opposition parties that are railing against the two cops who were charged and freed of the offence of torture and who were recently promoted by the Police Service Commission.
If the men were convicted, they would have automatically lost their jobs. But the fact that they were not convicted meant that they could only be sanctioned administratively. This sanction could have involved dismissal. It is possible to be dismissed administratively.
Thus, if the investigative files were to be sent to the Police Service Commission as the basis of a complaint against the cops, the Police Service Commission could have launched disciplinary proceedings against the cops concerned. But the two cops concerned would have had the right to lead a defence. In the absence of witnesses, it would have been difficult, but not impossible, for the charges to be administratively upheld against them.
The fact of the matter is that when the allegations of torture arose, there were demands for the men to be charged with a criminal act. In other words, no one was pressing for dismissal through disciplinary proceedings. There were demands for the men to be charged and placed before the courts.
This is where the second principle comes in. If someone is charged by a higher tribunal, in this instance, the courts, and the charges are not upheld by the higher tribunal, then as a general rule, the persons should not later be convicted by a lower tribunal.
If, for example, someone is found not guilty of a criminal offence by the High Court, then that person cannot be subsequently charged and freed of the same offence by the magistrates’ court. The general rule is that a lower tribunal cannot overturn a charge of a higher tribunal.
Adopting this principle, there may be the temptation to argue that since the men were freed in the magistrates’ courts, they could not have been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any administrative tribunal established by the Police Service Commission. In other words, they could not be charged departmentally.
This is the general rule. But an exception can be made in the case concerned. That exception can be made because in the magistrates’ courts, the charges against the men were not disproved; they were simply not proved because of the absence of witnesses. Thus, the men in my humble estimation could have still been subject to departmental proceedings.
Whether they were I am not sure. But even if they were it would have been difficult, but not impossible, for the charges to be upheld in the absence of witnesses.
The fact of the matter is that the men were no longer interdicted and therefore they were on the job and liable to the legitimate expectations of any employee of the Guyana Police Force.
One of those expectations- and this is where I introduce the third principle- is that if you are working in a job and the position you hold allows for you to enjoy upward mobility, then you have a legitimate expectation to promotion.
I find it absolutely appalling that the opposition parties in this country – which are holding themselves up as being suitable to take the reins of political power in this country – should be arguing that two policemen on the job should not have been promoted.
Are they saying that the fact that these men were accused in the past of an offence (which was never proved in a court of law) they should continue to work indefinitely without any possibility of promotion? That is crazy! If I am working in a job and I have performed satisfactorily then why should I not be eligible for promotion?
What the opposition parties should be arguing is that the men should have been charged departmentally. But there is no guarantee that such charges would have been upheld. But to say that having been on the job that they should not be promoted is simply not right.

---

---