Leave, but please explain why

Oct 08, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Apparently, in Guyana, the moment a person is accused of a serious offence, a mysterious administrative switch is supposed to be flipped. CLICK. The accused goes on leave.

No investigation into whether the person’s continued presence could interfere with the investigation. No examination of the circumstances. No consideration of where the person works, who the person supervises, what access the person has to witnesses or evidence, or whether the person could actually influence anything.

Just: Accused? Serious offence? Send him home.

This is a wonderfully simple system. It has only one disadvantage. It isn’t really a system.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason why an employee accused of a serious offence might be placed on administrative leave. It is not, as some seem to believe, an automatic course of action.

Nor is it punishment by another name. The principal reason is considerably less exciting. It is about the investigation.

If an accused person’s continued presence in the workplace creates a realistic possibility that he or she could interfere with the investigation, influence witnesses, access evidence, intimidate colleagues, coordinate stories, destroy records or otherwise compromise the process, then removing that person temporarily from the workplace may be entirely sensible.

It is a precaution. Think of it as putting a large umbrella over the investigation.

You do not put the umbrella there because you have decided it is going to rain. You put it there because, if it does rain, you don’t want everybody standing around saying, “Well, this is unfortunate.”

But there is an important little word in all of this. That word is ‘could’.

Could the person’s presence interfere with the investigation? Could the person influence witnesses? Could the person access relevant information? Could the person exert authority over people involved? Could the person intimidate, pressure or otherwise compromise the process? Those are the questions that should be asked.

What appears to be missing from much of the public discussion about the current case involving a senior police officer is any serious attempt to answer them.

We are told that someone has been accused of a serious sexual offence. That is serious. The allegation should be investigated thoroughly, fairly and without fear or favour.

But we are also told that the officer works out of an office separate from the Criminal Investigation Department. Fine.

Then somebody needs to explain the connection. What exactly is the danger created by him remaining at work? Does he supervise investigators? Does he have access to the investigation? Does he have authority over the alleged victim or witnesses? Can he influence the officers conducting the investigation? Can he access evidence? Can he interfere with the chain of command? Can he make telephone calls that would make investigators suddenly develop an interest in gardening instead?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then by all means, administrative leave may be appropriate. But if nobody has established any such risk, then demanding automatic suspension begins to look less like a carefully considered investigative safeguard and more like a ritual.

And now we arrive at the interesting part. The person who made the allegation is also a police officer. That does not mean the allegation is false. It does not mean the accuser should be treated as guilty of anything.

It simply means that, if the argument for sending the accused on leave is that his presence might influence the investigation because he is a police officer, we ought to apply the same principle consistently. Could the complainant’s presence influence the investigation? Could she have contact with officers involved? Could she speak with potential witnesses? Could she have access to information about the investigation? Could her position within the Force affect the conduct or outcome of the investigation?

If the answer is yes, then the same precautionary principle applies. Perhaps both should be removed temporarily from the environment in which the investigation is being conducted. Or perhaps neither should be.

That is precisely why we have investigations. The answer should depend upon the circumstances, not upon which person happens to be standing in which corner of the allegation.

There is another important distinction. Administrative leave is not supposed to be a prize awarded to the public whenever an accusation becomes sufficiently alarming.

It is an administrative tool. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes it is unnecessary. Sometimes an employee can remain at work with appropriate restrictions while an investigation proceeds. Sometimes the only sensible course is to keep the person completely away from the workplace.

The relevant question is not whether somebody been accused. The relevant question is: “What must be done to protect the integrity of the investigation?”

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

• administrative switch, offence, Peeping Tom

---