– little achieved as timetable lapses

While the government inches along with implementation of the UK-funded security sector reform plan, an accompanying parliamentary review has still not started.

According to AFC MP Raphael Trotman, the parliamentary committee set up to review the implementation of the four-year $1 billion Guyana Security Sector Reform Action Plan met only once to elect a chairman. Since then, there have been no meetings, a situation, he said, which appears to be the result of a disconnect between the Office of the President and the National Assembly. He noted that in January this year, President Bharrat Jagdeo appointed Major General (Ret) Michael Atherly as Project Coordinator for Security Sector Reform while the National Assembly approved the creation of an oversight committee for the security sector. A substantive Police Commissioner in Henry Greene was also appointed. However, there have still been no reports to the committee on the implementation of components of the plan. “Nothing is happening,” Trotman told Stabroek News, “We agreed to establish a committee but there has been no work.”

The five main elements cover building the operational capacity of the police force, from the provision of a uniformed response to serious crime, forensics, crime intelligence and traffic policing; strengthening policy-making across the security sector to make it more transparent, effective, and better co-ordinated; mainstreaming financial management in the security sector into public sector financial management reform; creating substantial parliamentary and other oversight of the security sector; and building greater public participation and inclusiveness in security sector issues. The plan was specifically designed to complement the ongoing Citizen Security and Justice Reform programmes in a bid to tackle crime and security in a holistic manner.

The review committee is expected to receive and examine official annual reports from the administration on the status of the implementation of the activities in the 11 priority areas on an annual basis and also to provide a final report to the National Assembly of their examination of the reports on the implementation of the entire action plan.

Trotman lamented that it is only in times of crisis that the “good ideas” are remembered. In particular, he decried the failure of the committee to begin work, saying it is “important” and “necessary” because of its oversight function. The separate standing Parliamentary Oversight Committee on the Security Sector, which has responsibility for the policies and administration of the disciplined forces, he noted, had also not yet started work.
‘Fragile architecture’

The recent shooting of Commissioner of Insurance Maria van Beek, Trotman said, exposed the “fragile architecture” of the nation’s security. The brazen attack took place as van Beek was driving to work.

Trotman explained that the ability of the perpetrators to plan the attack and a successful escape demonstrates both the vulnerability of public officials as well as the relative inability of the state to protect them. “The audacity of the acts tells you that there are persons who believe they can get away with it, and that the national security architecture is not solid enough to prevent, through intelligence, these acts from occurring,” he said. “It tells us the system continues to fail.”

While saying it was unfortunate that van Beek was the victim of the attack, he noted that almost on a daily basis people are affected by crime for which there are few arrests or successful prosecutions. Despite the enactment of legislation to address the issues, he said, there appears to be “gaping holes” in the security architecture, allowing criminals to act with relative impunity.

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed for the implementation of the plan in August of 2007. In the short term, noting that Guyana remained dangerously close to the tipping point, the plan stressed the need for stakeholders to engage and initiate decisive action. Failing this, it said, Guyana could be transformed into a failed state or a haven for international criminality. It impressed the need to avoid such an outcome, adding that it would entail some give and take and flexibility on all sides, in the interest of the long suffering people.

According to the authors of the plan, areas of consensus between the parties included the need for immediate improvements to police capacity as well as effective crime and violence control measures, within the context of improved rule of law and human rights. “Our own conclusion is that there is less clarity and consensus over the scope and duration of the reform programme, as well as uncertain commitment to a governance dimension,” the authors stated. Further, they noted that the President had asked for help in delivering an inclusive process but said ensuring it as well as accountable management of the reform programme would be a challenge.

In this regard, they underscored the point that achieving the deliverables was dependent on the government and its development partners abiding by the participatory and inclusive approach proposed by President Jagdeo and agreed by the Leader of the Opposition after the 2006 general elections; the  community crime-and-violence-prevention strategy mandated by the Citizen Security Programme; the confidence-building Racial and Political Dialogue envisioned in the IDB’s Citizen Security Programme and the UNDP’s “Improving Social Cohesion, Security and Governance in Guyana”; and the collaboration between the President, Parliament and Leader of the Opposition which generated the Disciplined Forces Commission. “Given the risks and the high stakes involved, it is essential that the [Government of Guyana]/Guyanese stakeholders and the development partners work together to ensure that certain verifiable steps which signal continuing commitment and engagement are taken throughout the process,” the authors of the plan added.
Timetable
Drawing from their experience elsewhere, they set out what needed to be achieved in the first twelve to eighteen months to set a credible and sustainable reform path. They however noted that the dates were tentative and could be modified.

The end of the third month was supposed to have seen the establishment of the National Security Sector Reform Management framework agreed by the Government in consultation with Parliament and political parties.

In the next month, they said following due process, there would have been the appointment of a substantive Police Commissioner to lead the reform effort.  Greene was only appointed at the end of last year, after acting in the post for about two years.

Month six was to have seen the Special Parliamentary Select Committee complete the review of the Disciplined Forces Commission (DFC) report, which contained the most comprehensive study of the security sector. “If the credibility of this process is to be sustained, parliament will need to complete its work without further delay,” the plan stated. However, the committee has still not completed its work and was granted a further extension of its mandate to August 6, this year. The review of the DFC report has been ongoing for five years. Trotman said the committee has concluded reviewing the work of the Guyana Defence Force, the Guyana Prison Service and the Guyana Fire Service and would now be dealing with the reform recommendations for the Guyana Police Force.

In month seven, there was to have been the establishment of the standing Parliamentary Oversight Committee on the Security Sector. The committee was set up at the end of January this year.

By month eight, the plan expected government to issue a White Paper based on parliamentary review of the DFC report.

In month ten, there was to have been a cross-party agreement in principle on an integrated Security Sector Reform Strategy, initially drawing on the DFC and previous and current reports on the security sector, including the IDB and UNDP programmes and the government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Between months eleven to seventeen, there was to have been the commencement (or at least agreement to commence) a comprehensive National Threat Assessment, utilising a consultative and participatory format with the aim of developing an integrated National Security Policy framework, drawing together existing and future sectoral strategy plans.

In the final month–either twelve or eighteen–there would have been an Interim Programme Review to verify the implementation. That timetable, however, elapsed two months ago.