Why the Police Complaints Authority needs ten investigators

Nov 07, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor;
Both Kaieteur News and Stabroek News, in their Sunday edition, October 30, 2016 carried advertisements from the Ministry of Public Security. One struck me like a bolt from the blue. It came under the caption; “Request For Individual Consulting Services Ministry Of Public Security Cooperative Republic Of Guyana.”
According to the document the Project Executing Unit of the CSSP is inviting eligible consultants to indicate their interest in providing the services for Investigators for the Police Complaints Authority (10). It further stated that the incumbent is expected to conduct and / participate in investigations of matters which potentially involve allegations of misconduct, criminal violations, or violations of Standard Operating Procedures of the Guyana Police Force.
This advertisement has jolted me. It leaves more questions than answers. It leaves me to wonder a bit. Why would the Police Complaints Authority need ten (10) investigators? Is the PCA so democratic that it is decentralizing its base to include one investigator for each Region in Guyana?
I know that the Disciplined Forces Commission had mentioned that in the longer term, serious consideration should be given to the PCA having additional offices outside of the capital. Certainly, not ten investigators. Will the incumbent be given the legal status to investigate offences under the Police (Discipline) Act? Maybe, the PCA had conducted an environmental scanning and came up with the futuristic position that members of the GPF will commit so many offences now and in the future that the PCA will require ten investigators to deal with the projected deviant behaviour. Commissioner, look out for the challenges of inappropriate behaviour.
What a potential waste of human and other scarce resources! In a letter to the editor last month i question the legality of the investigators of the PCA to investigate breaches of discipline under section 4. (a) of the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17: 01. I argued that section 5 (1) of the Act debars them from investigating breaches of discipline and that the investigators may also be violating section 5. (2) – (4) of the Act. Section 5 (1) of the Act states , “Every alleged commission of an offence against discipline under this Act shall be investigated as soon as practicable by a member of the force not below the rank of sergeant and of a higher rank than the member of the Force who is alleged to have committed the offence.”
This section is pellucid. It needs no legal interpretation. It clearly states that the investigation must be done by a member of the Force not below the rank of sergeant and of a higher rank than the member of the Force whom it is alleged to have committed the supposed breach of discipline. The investigators employed by the PCA are civilians.
They have no police rank but they are investigating breaches under the Police (Discipline) Act. There are four of them. According to the advertisement the projected number is ten. In keeping with the present status quo more investigators will mean more illegal actions. I felt that by now the PCA would have responded to my letter.
There is a thick wall of silence. Perhaps, my letter is not worthy of a response or the policy makers are quietly confabulating with the Police and the Police Service Commission to accommodate the investigators by swearing them as members of the Force and bestowing the relevant ranks on them so that they can legally investigate breaches of discipline; or the Act which has remained pristene since its enactment in 1975 will be amended to give PCA investigators legal status to investigate disciplinary offences.
The Police Complaints Authority Act enacted in 1989 does not change a single word in the Police (Discipline) Act. It is in addition to and not in contradiction of the provisions of the Police (Discipline) Act. I am still wondering. Interestingly there is a thin blue wall of silence coming from the GPF and the Police Service Commission who are receiving or will receive and act on the forbidden fruits from a poisonous tree that is or will be regularly submitted to them by the investigators.
It is debatable whether or not the police should investigate themselves. But who has the investigative techniques, the serving members of the Force, the ex members or civilians? I have no quarrel who should conduct investigations of misconduct by the police but those persons so employed must be legally empowered. I agree that swift, certain and appropriate action must be taken against defaulting ranks.
On the other hand, the police personnel should be quickly rewarded for outstanding work done. However, in doing so the rights of the police under the Laws of Guyana must not be trampled on. Justice must not only be done but must appear to be done. Let justice and fair play prevail.
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
Retired

---

---