THE Rights of the Child Commission, in a statement yesterday, said it “views with alarm”, the recent promotion of two policemen, both of whom were found to have tortured a child.After a careful assessment of the facts relating to this case, the Commissioners concluded that these promotions constitute a significant departure from the spirit and intent of Article 19 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which establishes the right of the child to be free from hurt, both in body and mind.

Moreover, the Commissioners noted, that in addition to its breach of the UNCRC, the promotions also collide violently with Guyana’s treaty obligations under the UN Convention Against torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CAT).

The Commissioners reviewed the fact that the culpability of the policemen in question is beyond dispute, in view of the findings of the GPF’s own Office of Professional Responsibility and the decision by Justice Roxanne George in a civil case.

The Commissioners deemed as unconvincing the pronouncement that the two policemen would have under gone sufficient censure.

The Commissioners posited that the malevolence and depravity of torture, constitutes the worst form of human rights infraction.

Thus, the Commissioners concluded that, such malevolence and depravity, when imbued into the promotion equation, abolishes any legitimate and meritocratic prospect of promotion. The
Commissioners mentioned that the singularity of the infraction does not in any meaningful way depreciate its depravity.

The Commissioners also found as unconvincing the reference to chapter 17:01 of the Police Act, as the decision by Justice George effectively took this matter beyond the confines of the Police Act and showed that the High Court of Guyana found this infraction to be repugnant to the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana as well as to the international treaties to which Guyana is a signatory.

The Commissioners reviewed the fact that ever since the unveiling of the Disciplined Forces Commission’s Report, the Guyana Police Force has embarked on a process of reform. Such has included ventures of community engagements, partnership with youth based NGO’s etc. These endeavours are to be commended.

However, the promotion of policemen found linked to the torturing of a child will undermine the process of reform and will moreover corrode public faith in the police to effectively discharge their mandate, centred on service and protection.
“In a word, these promotions are not in the interest of the GPF, and as a significant corollary, not in the interest of law and order,” the Commission stated.

Also, the commissioners have noted that at the recent Universal Periodic Review Working Group meeting in Switzerland, statements of concern have been raised about the prevalence of police excesses in Guyana. “Such promotions will only serve to aggravate and entrench further international concern,” the Commission posited.

In this regard, the Rights of the Child Commission, at a minimum, calls for the “immediate rescinding of these promotions”.
Gov’t had no role in promotion

The Commission’s statement came a day after the Government ‘nipped in the bud’, the erroneous notion being peddled in some sections of the media that it “participated, authorised or concurred” with promotions of Sergeant Narine Lall and Constable Mohanram Dulai – two police officers charged with criminal acts.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, made it clear that “the Executive plays no part in the recruitment, promotion, appointment or discipline of members of the Guyana Police Force, other than the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner. Indeed, these are matters from which the Executive is specifically insulated by provisions of the Constitution and the Police Act.”

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Sergeant Lall and Constable Dulai were charged with torturing a 15-year-old boy, Twyon Thomas, in 2008 at the Leonora Police Station and were, consequently, the subject of an investigation that resulted in criminal charges being instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against them.
Sergeant Lall (regulation number 14526) and Constable Dulai (regulation number 19028) were charged by the Director of Public Prosecutions and during the pendency of the trial before the Magistrate’s Court, both Sergeant Lall and Constable Dulai were interdicted from duty. These charges were subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution. As a result, the interdictions were removed.
Also, a Constitutional Motion was subsequently filed by Thomas against the Attorney General in respect of the same case.
Thomas was arrested on the 27th October, 2009, in relation to an investigation of an alleged murder of Ramenauth Bisram, which had occurred sometime on or around the 26th October, 2009.
He alleged that he was taken to Leonora Police Station and he was allegedly tortured by Constable Dulai and Sergeant Lall.
The legal proceedings filed against the Attorney General, culminated in an award of damages, which was duly paid by the State.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Commissioner of Police have since promoted Sergeant Lall, regulation number 14526, and Constable Dulai, regulation number 19028, to the rank of Inspector and Corporal, respectively.
Given the controversy surrounding their service, the promotion of the two ranks has resulted in much public commentary.

NO ROLE BY THE EXECUTIVE

However, Minister Nandlall, in a statement yesterday, maintained that the Executive had “no part to play” in their promotions.

He said, “Article 212 (1) of the Constitution vests in the Police Service Commission the power to make appointments to any offices in the Police Force of or above the rank of Inspector, the power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power to remove such persons from office.

Article 212 (2) resides similar powers in the Commissioner of Police in respect of officers in the Police Force below the rank of Inspector.”
The Police Service Commission consists of five members, namely the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and four other persons, nominated by the National Assembly, as stipulated by Article 210 of the Constitution.
“In the discharge of its functions, the Commission enjoys constitutionally enshrined independence and autonomy which is captured in the imperative language of Article 226 (1) ‘…in the exercise of its functions under this constitution, a Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority’,” the Attorney General said.