Remove the acting from the Crime Chief

Dec 29, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
I think it is time this foolishness of describing Assistant Commissioner Paul Williams as acting Crime Chief to stop. The mere mention of acting presupposes that there is an officer who is the substantive Crime Chief for whom Williams is holding. There is no such person since the posting of officers is within the remit of the Commissioner of Police as had been widely practised by the late Laurie Lewis.
Wendell Blanhum is a substantive Senior Superintendent of Police and has no title or transport for the office of Assistant, or even Deputy Commissioner ‘Law Enforcement’.
The truth be told, I heartily endorse the findings and recommendations arising from the COI into allegations of a plan to kill the President of the country. But I think some things are simply too glaring to ignore.
First of all, the arrival of Blanhum to prominence was no accident because his predecessor was undermined in his favour. The evidence linking Babita Sarjoo’s murder to the accused was known all along but James was not provided with the support or resources to follow up on his leads.
Suddenly in comes Mandrake and all is solved. A review of the matters investigated where charges were laid might be an eye-opener in terms of their final disposition. It is time that a process of reviewing criminal investigations is introduced in the Force to determine whether protocols and procedures are being followed.
Members of the Force and even John Public are puzzled as to why Mr. Seelall Persaud is being allowed to proceed on leave when he acted improperly in a matter which had implications for the safety of the Head of State?
I sincerely hope those in authority are not swayed by the representations of certain interested parties who may be bent on taking advantage and misusing this much abused concept of a political coalition.
Paul Williams as Assistant Commissioner ‘Law Enforcement’ has demonstrated that he has what it takes to lead. He knows how to get in the field with his ranks. He isn’t simply a “manager” who stays in his office and ignores the importance of effective supervision along the entire chain of command. He just needs to exercise a bit of caution in his public pronouncements, lest they come back to haunt him.
I noticed Mr. Harmon saying that officers who are due leave must take it. However, someone needs to explain why a certain Divisional Commander who has approximately one year accumulated vacation leave to his credit and should have proceeded on leave since September has not done so when there are other officers who can “act” in his absence.
Someone also needs to explain why the force administration has shielded a certain small division Commander who engages in sexual harassment of females. A review of the administrative and operational areas of the GPF needs to be undertaken urgently.
Yours faithfully,
Gervais Grandison

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News