It is the legitimate expectation of every law-abiding society that persons who commit acts of criminality, be apprehended and brought before the Bar of Justice.
Of course, in keeping with the laws of natural Justice, it is expected that the right accused be arraigned, at the end of diligent and thorough enquiries, concluding that there is indeed sufficient evidence against that person, who would be able to withstand any intense probe or scrutiny.
Based on the latter, then a conviction befitting the proven crime is expected. This will undoubtedly culminate with society’s fulfilled expectations–its faith in the justice system upheld; and the wrong to the victim adequately assuaged by judicial sanction.
Recently, the high-profiled case in which a policeman, reportedly murdered (gunned down) during the course of an operation, highlighted those perceptions alluded to in the previous paragraph. Based on the ensuing events, not only had the wrong person been arrested, charged, and placed before the court, but inevitably, he was ordered released by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
As is to be expected, there was a huge public outcry, with stinging criticisms levelled against the police service. This was another attempted prosecution that failed, compliments of an investigation process that was obviously riddled with significant errors. It was another dent in the image of a service, already the object of intense public scrutiny, and outright hostility.
A bungled enquiry of this nature will emit a fallout in four major areas: the victim’s family; the public; the police service; and the subject ministry.
For the slain policeman’s family, it must be a crushing disappointment, especially since he died in the line of duty. Their expectations would be no more than the families of other murdered victims – that the assailant is caught, and justice be served. It was a familiar cry echoed by the mother of the dead cop. Significantly, she surmised that his colleagues ought to have been able to do more.
This recent incident would have exacerbated the public’s distrust, and increased anger, towards a police service, not only because of the reality of the wrong person that had been accused, but also because of the allegations of torture made by the freed accused. Most importantly, it does not bode well for efforts at improving and restoring the once seamless community/police relations so indispensable for the solving of crimes.
Further, one can understand the great disappointment of the minister and the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is responsible for the state’s security sector. And this is quite understandable, given the monumental work done in introducing numerous programmes and initiatives, aimed especially at improving the service’s investigative and intelligence- gathering capabilities.
Therefore, the minister’s obvious impatience, publicly expressed in recent times, has to be appreciated, since as chief executive of perhaps the most important state sector, he has the critical responsibility of ensuring the competent conduct of its component parts.
In fairness to the sterling efforts at refurbishing the Guyana Police Service, thereby improving its effectiveness, it is time that this institution’s crime investigators use the resources being placed at their disposal, in a competent manner.
The public’s confidence in the Service can only be restored when its competency levels are improved, thereby allowing justice to be  served appropriately. Another investigative debacle is unforgivable.