In the early hours of last Sunday morning, former Crime Chief Leslie James was the victim of a home invasion when he was confronted by armed bandits. It had some of the hallmarks of an opportunistic crime, since a neighbour heard one of the men saying, “Is the Crime Chief house we just went in, bai”. In other words, before coming face to face with Mr James, it seems the bandits did not know whose house they were robbing; it just had the appearance of an easy target (they forced a downstairs window to gain entry). Presumably had they known who lived there, they might have had second thoughts.
The following day Mr Donald Ramotar issued a statement saying that the attack illustrated how crime was “spiralling out of control.” He went on to describe the robbery as “a blatant and brazen attack on one of our most senior police officers. It is a slap in the face of the Guyana Police Force and the government as a whole.” The solution was, he thought, to put the army on the streets: “I am extremely disappointed that the mentality of the APNU+AFC regime is to keep the army in barracks,” he continued, “The trend all over the world is for the army to come out and work with the police in combatting crime.”
This was not a suggestion which found favour with President David Granger who was reported by the Guyana Chronicle on Thursday as saying he had given instructions to the army and it would be better if Mr Ramotar kept away from that matter. He was reported as going on to comment that his instructions to both the police and the army were in the best interest of the nation. “I meet the Chief of Staff every week and I am fully aware of what needs to be done in order to deal with the defence situation… and also the crime situation,” he was quoted as telling reporters.
While putting the army on the streets is not the answer to the crime situation at this time, it was both unjustified and ungracious of the President to tell an immediate former president and one-time General Secretary of the PPP not to interfere. Even if he had not been a leading figure in the opposition, this is a democracy, and anyone has the right to comment on a matter of public interest, and the Head of State has no right to tell them to be silent. One cannot talk democracy and free speech on the one hand and then behave differently in practice; it simply has the effect of opening another credibility gap which the government can ill afford.
As it was the police force itself chose to respond to Mr Ramotar, saying in a statement that the current Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum had “emphatically [made] the case that crime is not spiralling out of control based on our statistics, supported by other data.” The statement went on to refer to the fact that statistics showed there had been an 8% rise in serious crime between January and October this year when compared to the same period last year, and an increase of 0.2% when compared to the same period in 2013. However, the release drew attention to the “significant efforts of the police regarding the arrest and prosecution of several high profile groups of criminals, and the … solving of a number of serious crimes, including murders and armed robberies dating back to 2013…”
And this latter point is perhaps the essence of the issue: there is no doubt that the present Crime Chief has had more success in arresting perpetrators than any of his predecessors; and making an impact on the crime situation in the first instance depends on catching armed bandits, robbers and murderers. If, as has been claimed, criminal gangs are being broken up in the process, in due course citizens should begin to notice some decrease in the serious crime rate, provided, that is, that convictions are obtained in court. This is something with which there has been a problem in the past, although it is a reflection as much of the defects in our justice system as it is of the shortcomings of the police.
Certainly putting the army on the streets is no substitute for thorough police investigations and the use of intelligence, both of which the police statement said the GPF was doing. As a result some serious crimes had been solved. And that is what citizens want to hear: that criminals are being taken off the streets, not that the army is being put on. Defence personnel may have a psychological impact, but they are not empowered to do the kind of police work which would have an impact on crime. It might be added as an aside that soldiers patrolling the roads would not have prevented the unpleasant visitation to which Mr James was subject.
By the end of the week it was the turn of the Private Sector Commission to have its say on the matter. “The PSC is greatly concerned over what we perceive as the hike in crimes and we are left to wonder: Who is next?” declared Chairman Norman McLean dramatically, himself a one-time former police officer. Of course we are in the penumbra of the Christmas season, when everyone – especially the business community – anticipates an increase in robberies.
The PSC had presented a document on fighting crime earlier this year, and Mr McLean said that tweaked from its original version, it could be of great utility to the Police Force. He highlighted especially the use of data the police have been compiling through their Integrated Crime Information System (ICIS), and the importance of analyzing those statistics.
“We need to look at crime statistics over the last five years to assess the evolving state of crime in Guyana over that time,” he said; “I need to emphasise that the data collection being executed by ICIS is but the first phase. You can have the data and not use it effectively and it becomes useless data just being recorded. The data must be interpreted and used to identify ‘black spots on crime,’ day and time, frequency, modus operandi so that we can better understand crime, conduct of crime, mapping as well as other relevant details which can help… predict the course of crime…”
This, at least, is an eminently sensible suggestion, and one wonders who in the GPF is undertaking the task of analysis. Mr McLean complained that the PSC was not privy to ICIS content and so it could not help the police with this tool. “Where is the transparency which was so widely touted?” he asked. It is difficult to know whether data on ICIS should be more publicly accessible; the police may have good reason for not making it available at this stage. However, one would like to feel confident that they have someone (or preferably, persons) capable of sophisticated interpretation and analysis, and that they are making use of the data.
What one does recognize is that bringing crime down to levels which cause less public alarm, is not something which can be achieved over an abbreviated time frame. Furthermore, succeeding in that regard depends on repairing all the flaws in the variegated aspects of police performance and, it must be added, confronting entrenched problems such as corruption. Having said that, however, the recent record of arrests is something of a breakthrough for which the force deserves credit.