A LETTER dated 14th July, 2017, signed by Mr. Omesh Satyanand, Chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC) and addressed to Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud, stated, “The [PSC] has reviewed a list of disciplinary matters at interviews held and has recommended that the following disciplinary matters should be dismissed, i.e. no charge should be instituted against the officers.”

Advisedly, officers of the Guyana Police Force from the rank of inspector to senior superintendent have had charges recommended against them, allegedly having to do with a range of issues, namely: theft of fuel, neglect of duty, unlawful exercise of authority, disobeying a lawful order, absent from duty and late for duty.

The PSC has certain responsibilities for the Guyana Police Force, but the responsibility whether to charge or not to charge persons is vested in the director of public prosecutions (DPP) and that of police officers having to do with matters pertaining to their work, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). The PSC has no constitutional authority to instruct the force not to charge nor discipline. What the PSC has is constitutional authority to review disciplinary action based on appeal. Acting otherwise is usurping the authority of the force.

That having been said, where the PCA and the DPP have recommended charges it is the police force as the state’s legal enforcement arm that has to act and not the PSC. By taking on itself the decision to advise the commissioner of police not to act on matters that the force has been advised to act on by the institutions so empowered to advise, is acting outside of constitutional ambit, putting the PSC above the law, and threatening the people’s safety and nation’s security. Society should find this troubling.

Based on the force’s human resource strength, the number of officers recommended to be charged is both startling and disturbing. The force’s motto is “Service and Protection,”which means it has total responsibility for the protection of every facet of society from criminal activities and a duty its officers must carry out without fear, favour or ill will within the ambit of the law. The charges being made against upper-level officers are serious enough to raise the concern and ire of citizens. The last thing society would want is to lose faith in the force and for members of the force to think they can commit criminal acts against the State and engage in dereliction of duties and they will not be held to account.

And while the Constitution protects the PSC from external interference, it cannot behave like a law unto itself. The PSC has been appointed to perform certain duties and anybody in society can question its activities. Consequently, it needs to speak out and explain its conduct, given justifiable concern that the PCA and DPP would have done the research into whether the allegations merit charges or not. To disregard the function and role of the PCA and DPP by recommending their decisions be overturned is unprecedented in nature and logic, making it even more important to quell and allay suspicions and concerns by moving to address its action publicly.

Ensuring law and order in society requires a strong police force not only in technology, but also the quality of personnel it attracts, retains and rewards. Where the PSC could plant in the minds of citizens it has vested interest not in respecting the law and protecting the integrity of the force and its safety, but that of morphing into a body driven by partisan interest is not what society needs. Where such perception holds sway — real or contrived — it would make most dangerous and seriously reverse efforts at building confidence in the force by ensuring the police will be given the needed space to perform professionally and be held accountable when they fail to do.

The force remains an invaluable institution in society. The stipulated constitutional and legal roles of the PSC, DPP and PCA should not be tampered with or disregarded. To allow either or both is not only setting a disturbing precedence of undermining the rule of law, but is also a setback to society. Chairman Omesh Satyanand would find it most worthwhile to have the PSC revisit its non-permissible action.