THE Home Affairs Minister is said to have been studying the security agencies over five years and is now ready to announce new security plans. Other news reports from officials talk of a “few bad apples” as well as talk of bringing crime to “an acceptable level”, whatever that means.Such statements do not lend themselves to addressing the public perception of the GPF. First off, the

minister should have come to a conclusion after five months of study, and start to apply what he has learnt or any advice he may have got over the remaining five years. The issue is not about the integrity of the minister, but whether he can do better. This is the question for all officials.
The most important thing the minister and the opposition must understand is that the minister has a right and a responsibility to question the Commissioner on the overall effectiveness of the GPF. There is a difference between questioning about effectiveness and interference. The opposition tends to accuse the minister of both at the same time.
Questions should include policing strategies including special investigative techniques; use of stings across the force and public services; training; evidence-gathering and safe-keeping; response times; equipment maintenance and upkeep; data profiles on criminals and their associates; station-functioning;the status of long- standing investigations;and undercover operations in critical areas, etc. Occasional GPF successes are not enough.Public percept-ion of corruption in the traffic department and the apparent failure to trace drug mules to their sources, beg  further investigation. Should we believe that the criminal element is really better armed, trained and motivated than the ranks within the GPF? If so, why and how is this being addressed? Why are policemen involved in some criminal acts still working?