Corruption and the Guyana Police Force

Mar 29, 2015 News

---

By Dale Andrews
The undisputed findings of the LAPOP Survey; the comments being made about the investigation into the Neesa Gopaul murder; the current claims that Courtney Crum-Ewing’s reports of threats against his life were not taken seriously; all speak to a seriously dysfunctional organization which letter writers, among others, believe should be dismantled.

The incessant outcry about the police actions in the performance of their duty is like a wail of anguish, not unlike a voice crying in the wilderness.  National concern is further fuelled by reports that the criminally-inclined are getting the better of their victims by operating in ways similar to how police ranks conduct themselves.  The recent Mahaicony roadblock robbery is one such example, reminiscent of the spate of similar incidents on the East Bank of Demerara.
It has been argued that the Guyana Police Force (GPF) is continuously exposed to both local and overseas training courses.  What is not clear to the public is what the administration has in place to ensure that the acquired knowledge and skills are transferred to the relevant individuals and units. It would be interesting to know what benchmarks and timelines are set which guarantee that beneficiaries of those training programmes pass on what they have learned.
Regardless of what type and level of training is received, the perception that corruption is rife within the ranks of the GPF is arguably supported by the apparent incompetence displayed by members of the organization.  The half-baked manner in which criminal investigations are conducted cannot be laid at the feet of the incumbent Head of Law Enforcement.  That does not mean that the question should not be asked about what his predecessor(s) did to promote investigative efficiency within the Criminal Investigation Department to ensure successful criminal prosecutions.
This article looks at corruption in police forces and presents readers with an opportunity to identify and align their experiences of corruption and its manifestation(s) in the Guyana Police Force.  It is important to note, however, that despite the frequent reports and complaints of malpractice and misconduct, there have not really been any public revelations of high profile scandals involving the Force. However, this has not lessened the widespread concern about the standard of ethics and integrity within the primary law enforcement body.
I was not born then, but my subsequent readings have led me to conclude that at the time of its independence, Guyana had just emerged from a period of internal conflict, and therefore could be termed a post-conflict state in transition. This meant that state institutions like the Police Force bore residual elements of its former colonial repressive characteristics. Therein was presented a challenge to build a premier native law enforcement agency which commanded the respect of all within the national borders.
Shaw (2002) referring to the South African Police (SAP) force in Crime and policing in post-apartheid South Africa: transforming under fire, posits that, “there is no example of a post-conflict transitional society that has been able to build a legitimate police agency.”
To support his position he argued that the SAP, being more of an army than police, was the de facto coercive arm of the apartheid government, and which engaged in “random arrests, torture and assassination” while trampling on the human rights of residents and political dissidents.  Shaw concludes that the SAP operated outside of its “protect and serve” mandate and was a corrupted body in a corrupted state.
In his Institute for Security Studies paper on Corruption and the South African Police Service: A review and its implications), Andrew Faull notes the threat and potential impact of corruption as it “undermines democracy and social justice, thereby deepening poverty, fuelling organised crime and stunting efforts to promote human security” (150/200).
Although corruption often involves the misuse of public power for private gain, for the purposes of this article, corruption is defined as any action which embraces the offering, giving, soliciting or acceptance of an inducement or reward to influence actions against the interests of the organization (GPF), and includes bribery; violence and brutality; fabrication and destruction of evidence; racism; and, favouritism or nepotism.
The problems that beset police forces, including our own GPF, are aggravated by a failure to formulate and implement progressive policies to address among other issues: gifts and hospitality; inappropriate association, drugs misuse, computer misuse, sexual misbehaviour against the public etc..
Tim Newburn in Understanding and Preventing Police Corruption: Lessons from the literature, lists among the many types and dimensions of corruption that affect police forces:
(1) corruption of authority – where by virtue of their position officers accept some form of material gain without actually breaking the law;
(2) ‘kickbacks’ – when goods, services or money are received for referring business to particular individuals or companies;
(3) opportunistic theft – refers to stealing from arrestees, from traffic accident victims, crime victims and the bodies or property of deceased persons;
(4) ‘shakedowns’ – acceptance of a bribe for not making an arrest, not recording or following through on a report or complaint;
(5) protection of illegal activity – protecting the continued operations of persons engaged in illegal activities such as prostitution, pornography, drugs, (human trafficking);
(6) ‘the fix’ – undermining of criminal investigations or proceedings, or (misplaced court files);
(7) direct criminal activities – when police officer commits a crime against person or property for personal gain;
(8) internal payoffs – when prerogatives such as holidays, shift allocations, promotion, (lucrative postings) are bought, bartered and sold;
(9) ‘flaking’ or ‘padding’ – planting of or adding to evidence particularly in drugs cases.
Worth highlighting is the acceptance of free drinks, food or money to allow a bar to play loud music to the annoyance of residents, or to remain open after closing time.
Corruption takes many forms and prospers in all manner of environments.  Among the extensive literature on the similarities in the organisational cultures of police forces globally is an agreement that common traits include those of group solidarity. Then there is a code of silence engendered by an unhealthy suspicion of civilians, which produces the type of enabling environment that fosters and protects corrupt members.
Altogether, with the immense discretionary power with which frontline officers are endowed, the possibility exists that without close supervision, ranks may be susceptible to widespread corrupt and criminal practices.  Therefore, to sensibly address corruption in the GPF, the organisational culture must be a paramount consideration with particular regard to policy change. (Brogden et al 1988; Crank 1998)
Comments from various quarters suggest that low salaries are the cause of police corruption and other forms of professional misconduct.  It would be interesting to know if, and in what ways, low salary levels impact negatively on the performance and conduct of the other essential services including the Guyana Fire Service, Guyana Prison Service, and the Guyana Defence Force, or even the nursing profession.
It is quite obvious that nurses, and fire fighters – just to name two categories, do not have the same kind of discretionary powers, or opportunities to abuse their powers, that police ranks have.  Encouraging the monetary discourse is likely to fuel its perpetuation, resulting in greater acceptance and buy-in from both the public and police.
This then contributes to a revolving wheel where acceptance of police corruption becomes the norm.  However, this is not to ignore the likelihood that higher salaries will make these occupations more desirable and respected professions, thereby contributing to the sustenance of integrity and dedication; while I do believe that corruption will not be completely eliminated, but the stakes will get higher.
No more will a rank accept the pittances now being paid as bribes; instead of the “Towel”, they will demand the “Granger”.
The current practice of paying 5% increases to the essential services in line with the rest of the public sector should be reviewed to give essential services members, in addition to the annual public service wage increase, a performance-bonus cum merit increment. (To be continued)

---

---