Dear Editor,
I read with great interest a letter written by Mark De Costa under the caption ‘The PCA must be given real authority to do its work in the interest of the public’ (Stabroek News, January 1).
The writer stated that the findings of the hearing are added to the file and then returned to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) for final recommendations of penalty. This gives the impression that the PCA is concerned with penalty after a disciplinary inquiry is completed. This is not so. Whenever a complaint is made by the PCA to the Commissioner of Police and a disciplinary inquiry is completed, the results of that inquiry including punishment awarded or not are sent to the PCA for its information and not for final recommendations of penalty. The PCA has no power to impose punishment for breaches of indiscipline under the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17:01. That power is bestowed on the Police Service Commission as it relates to inspectors up to deputy commissioners. In the case of constables up to sergeants, the Commissioner of Police is the disciplinary authority.
He may delegate such powers to divisional and branch commanders to impose punishment. Such power is however limited as divisional and branch commanders can only impose fines not exceeding 5 days’ pay and confinement to barracks not exceeding 14 days. Serious matters which may include dismissals and reduction in rank are the sole domain of the Commissioner.
The writer recommended that the determination of penalty by the PCA should be final and binding on the police. Does this mean that the power to impose penalty should be taken away from the Police Service Commission, the Commissioner of Police and divisional and branch commanders and handed to one person, the chairman of the PCA? The writer may have very good reasons for making such a recommendation. He did not explain.
The writer submitted that the PCA legal counsel should be present at disciplinary hearings. Maybe he is not au fait with the organization and structure of the Guyana Police Force. The police have ranks spread across all 83,000 square miles of Guyana and are made up of seven divisions – A-G. There is an average of at least over one hundred disciplinary inquiries conducted each year. Most of these disciplinary inquiries are conducted simultaneously across the various divisions.
Can you imagine the legal counsel being present and presenting matters at Imbotero in the north, Aishalton in the south, Orealla in the east, and Orinduik in the west at the same time? Could the legal counsel be at Springlands, Cove and John, Brickdam, Linden, Leonora, Suddie, Lethem, Port Kaituma and New Amsterdam police stations presenting and listening to disciplinary matters at the same time? How would the counsel deal with that logistical nightmare?
On the other side of the coin, what about representation for defaulters? In the interest of justice should they be allowed counsel as in the case of the complainant, even at their own cost?
The writer could have been a little more explicit and elaborate about his research on the real needs and concerns of the public.
No mention was made of the section/s of the Police Complaints Authority Act Chapter 17:02 and the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17:01 and how they should be amended and why.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner
of Police (rtd)
