When someone is accused...

When someone is accused…

Oct 18, 2026 Front Page Comment, News

Front Page Comment

(Kaieteur News) – When an individual is accused of a serious offence, circumstances may warrant that person being temporarily removed from the workplace while the allegations are investigated. This is not a declaration of guilt, nor should it be interpreted as one. It is a precaution designed to protect the integrity of the investigation, preserve evidence and prevent possible interference with witnesses.

Administrative leave, however, should not become an automatic response to every allegation. The measure must be justified by the circumstances, not by public pressure or an assumption of guilt.

These principles have come into sharp focus following allegations of rape and threatening behaviour made by a female member of the Guyana Police Force against Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh, who heads the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU). The allegations remain allegations, and the officer is entitled to due process. Equally, the complainant is entitled to the protection of the law.

The difficulty with sending the Deputy Commissioner on leave arose because of the absence of a duly constituted Police Service Commission (PSC), the constitutional body vested with disciplinary authority over police officers of or above the rank of Inspector.

The Police Force subsequently announced that the Deputy Commissioner had been sent on leave pending the investigation. Thereafter, a dispute emerged over the Commissioner’s authority to compel him to proceed on leave. His lawyer challenged the legal basis of the directive, and the Commissioner subsequently withdrew his letter concerning pre-retirement leave.

The episode exposes a serious institutional weakness. When an allegation of this gravity is made against a senior officer who occupies a position of considerable authority within the police service, the law should provide a clear, timely and defensible mechanism for determining whether temporary removal from duty is necessary. It should not leave the matter dependent on uncertainty over which authority possesses the power to act.

Sending someone on leave pending an investigation is not necessarily a disciplinary sanction. Properly conceived, it is a temporary protective measure, intended neither to punish nor to prejudge the outcome of the investigation. Nevertheless, where compulsory leave affects an officer’s duties and status, the authority to impose it must be grounded in law.

The Constitution vests disciplinary control over senior police officers in the PSC, while permitting the Commission to delegate specified powers. But what happens when the Commission is not constituted and an urgent situation arises? The absence of the Commission should not be treated as an automatic transfer of its constitutional powers to the Commissioner of Police. Nor should the law leave the Commissioner without a clearly defined means of protecting an investigation where the circumstances genuinely demand immediate precautionary action.

This is a legislative gap that demands attention. Parliament should enact a clear framework authorising appropriate designated authorities to impose compulsory administrative leave or temporary restrictions on duties where reasonable grounds establish a genuine need. The legislation should distinguish precautionary leave from formal interdiction and disciplinary punishment, and specify the circumstances in which each measure may be used.

Such authority must come with safeguards. The affected officer should receive written notification of the grounds, retain applicable salary and benefits unless the law provides otherwise, and have access to a timely opportunity to challenge the decision. These safeguards prevent administrative leave from being weaponised against an officer.

The Karimbaksh controversy should therefore prompt a broader examination of the law governing the temporary removal of public officers from duty when serious allegations arise. It is not a question of declaring anyone guilty or innocent. It is a question of ensuring that the authorities have lawful means of protecting the investigative process. Justice requires fairness to the accused. It also requires protection for complainants, witnesses and evidence. Our laws must provide a practical means of securing both. When they do not, Parliament has a responsibility to correct the deficiency.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

accused, guilt, integrity of the investigation, investigated, serious offence

Latest News