THE Government of Guyana’s decision to require body cameras for all law enforcement officers at ports of entry marks a significant step in the battle against corruption.

Starting Monday, September 29, 2025, this directive stems from a troubling extortion case at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, where police demanded money from a passenger to return her legal belongings. This quick response shows that accountability is now essential in our security system.

The incident at CJIA is not surprising for those familiar with the ongoing corruption claims against Guyana’s law enforcement. The US State Department’s 2024 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report pointed out how corruption within law enforcement allows drug traffickers to evade prosecution.

Local police often drop charges or fail to investigate properly. The report emphasised that weak enforcement mechanisms at ports of entry hinder Guyana’s drug control efforts. In this context, the airport extortion case is just the latest sign of deep-rooted issues.

The body camera mandate is not groundbreaking; it is necessary. President Ali had already provided 5,000 body cameras to the Guyana Police Force in May 2025, stating there would be no excuses for officers without them. Traffic Chief Mahendra Singh has credited body cameras with addressing professionalism issues and ensuring officer accountability during public interactions.

The technology has effectively reduced incidents where officers face disruptions while on duty. Still, the CJIA extortion case shows that adherence to body camera protocols is inconsistent.

What makes this corruption especially concerning is its location. CJIA is Guyana’s main entry point, the first impression for thousands of visitors and returning citizens. When police at our primary port engage in extortion, they harm not only the victims but also the country’s reputation.

The government’s zero-tolerance policy is encouraging, but it needs to lead to real consequences. The Office of Professional Responsibility’s investigation into the involved officers serves as a test for institutional integrity. In the past, some corruption cases have resulted in officers being quietly reassigned instead of prosecuted. This trend of lenient accountability has fostered public scepticism about police reform.

The rollout of body cameras must be thorough and consistent. Commissioner Clifton Hicken’s directive that officers without body cameras should not conduct stops underscores the importance of this initiative. The cameras’ specifications—IP67 rating for waterproofing, 256GB storage capacity, and compatibility with national surveillance networks—leave no room for excuses regarding compliance.

However, technology alone cannot fix institutional corruption. As Deputy Commissioner Ravindradat Budhram noted, changing the culture requires better training, recruitment standards that prioritise integrity, and mandatory ethics education. The government must ensure that this body camera mandate signifies the start, not the end, of extensive police reform.

The CJIA incident serves as a clear reminder that corruption flourishes in secrecy. Body cameras provide the transparency that our law enforcement urgently needs.

Citizens deserve officers who protect them rather than extort them, and visitors should experience professionalism instead of exploitation.

The government has made a positive move—now it must guarantee that this technology becomes a solid defence against corruption at every port of entry.