Dear Editor,
In which part of the world, as far as the media is concerned, has there been a ‘stellar performance’ by law enforcement agencies or the head of the department that formulates policy for these agencies? The answer is an unequivocal none!
Owing to the inextricable link between the policy-makers and the law enforcement agencies, especially the police, it is not unusual to cast blame on both for failures and non-‘stellar performances.’ And when the occasional situation for congratulations presents itself it is the police and not the politicians who get the plaudits.
Opposition politicians, members of parliament, sections of the media and some stakeholders contribute to the ‘big lie’ and the confusion about the role of the minister vis-à-vis the police and the law enforcement agencies. According to the Police Act, the Minister gives “general orders and directions” to the Commissioner of Police who for his part (not the Minister’s) “has command and control over the Force.”
The “general orders and directions” from the Minister are based on policy while “command and control” exercised by the Commissioner are of an operational nature. Therefore, when it comes to matters of policy the buck stops with the Minister. When it comes to operations the buck stops with the Commissioner.
But does the populace make these fine distinctions? The answer is clearly no! Why? Because over the decades the perception has been created and nurtured that the two are one. Just as the Minister of Health cannot tell a medical doctor what to prescribe or not to prescribe for a specific medical condition for any patient he examines, nor should he barge into an operating theatre and direct the surgeon as to what, when and where he should cut or not cut, in the same way, the Minister of Home Affairs cannot tell the Commissioner of Police when and how he is to carry out a police operation.
He may give “general orders and directions” about the need to prevent and reduce crime in a specific police division, but the modus operandi of doing so is left exclusively to the police.
When they succeed then thanks and praise are in order for the ranks who executed the operation, but if it turns out to be a botched operation criticisms and attacks are levelled at both the ministry and the police. Did the ministry carry out the operation? No. Did the police fail in their efforts to execute the policy? Maybe. Did the Minister of Home Affairs fail to “give general orders and directions”? No!
Generally, there ought not to be any forked divergence between the policy and the operational directions, but life is not predictable. That is why we must always prepare for the unpredictable.
On the one hand, predictable future problems are simply extensions of past problems that won’t go away, ie, numerous calls for service, many conventional crimes, occasional public mistakes, not enough resources, internal recruiting and promotion issues.
On the other hand, there are the predictable unpredictable issues such as occasional public order problems, public safety measures such as floods, periodic national security and terrorism threats of a local and foreign nature as well as new local-global crimes including cyber crimes and money laundering. What is needed in response to these challenges is intelligent management and of necessity, intelligence or evidence-based policing.
The Ministry of Home Affairs is supportive of this approach and has consistently encouraged the Guyana Police Force (GPF) to adopt this approach. The Ministry of Home Affairs has and continues to provide the necessary tools and training necessary to assist the Force to equip itself to proceed in this direction. Moreover, the new Forensic Laboratory, with the Force as one of its clients, will give a tremendous boost to the capacity of the GPF in support of this approach.
While the ball is now in the court of the GPF, the Ministry of Home Affairs will not stand idly by to witness the rolling out of the reforms currently underway at the Guyana Police Force (GPF).
The activities of the Strategic Management Department (SMD) at Force headquarters and the recruitment of the British, Capita Symonds Consultancy to complement the efforts of the SMD will be monitored and evaluated on a continuous basis by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
No amount of rubbishing or denigrating these efforts at reform will divert the ministry’s attention from the strategic transformative objectives.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J Rohee
Minister
