Dear Editor,
I HAVE always contended that members of any law enforcement agency have a right to perform their daily functions for the safe keeping and protection of their particular jurisdiction and its citizens.

However, it is the manner in which such a mandate is often carried out that must be of concern. For although such an agency does possess certain coercive powers that are seen as part of their functions, there has always been controversy and debate as to whether it is carried out in accordance with the standard operating procedures which must govern any organisation, especially those charged with the maintenance of law and order.
This has always been my concern relative to the Guyana Police Force(GPF) and its functions, especially throughout the years of the PPP/C nightmare of governance, when the professional standards of the local police agency became a victim of political interference, and its descent into the worst period of relations with the general public, because of acts that have been well chronicled, and need no repeat here.

However, two very recent incidents occurring within a short span of each other, brings into question the manner of police functions, evoking memories of an era which the country once endured, and has been seeking to expunge from its collective psyche, because of the transformative initiatives that have been improving the Force’s professional profile, and its concomitant relations with the public since 2015.

Any law enforcement officer must understand that his/her duty is to uphold the law, which they are sworn to do; that being in such a category holds them to a higher standard of behaviour than the citizens whom they have to protect; that even if offended, like any other citizen to whom, both directly and indirectly, they would give such advice – they must follow similar protocol, of filing a complaint, which will allow for an official investigation, and not resort to being judge, jury and executioner, as in the first case, in which two lawmen, siblings, allegedly resorted to inflicting injuries inclusive of burns, on the young man, alleged to have broken into their home.

This kind of behaviour is, without any debate, a case of abduction and torture, irrespective as to the allegation against the suspect, and puts the two officers in the category of any other citizen, committing such a serious offence. I am certain that these two police officers would have had the benefit of what being a representative of the law is all about, particularly with regards conduct in situations that may pertain to them, directly or indirectly as policemen. Theirs is the kind of action that

has been all too well known of some police officers, abusing their privilege because of who they are. Such type of law enforcement has the wrong concept and understanding of what a policeman is, and ought not to be part of such an organization, in which it is easy to use, its cover to commit such offences on citizens. One must recall the case of the teen being shot in the mouth by an officer, in response to a matter that
Regards,
Earl Hamilton