On Friday afternoon, the government issued a terse press release stating that it had received credible information related to a “potential domestic security threat” and that this coupled with increased criminal activity had resulted in the decision to institute security measures in targeted areas to be conducted by the Guyana Police Force (GPF) and the Guyana Defence Force (GDF).
The release went on to say that citizens can expect to see helicopters providing aerial coverage and an increased number of police officers along with members of the GDF in certain areas. It asked that citizens not be alarmed and urged that they co-operate with the security forces where necessary.
While it is important that citizens trust and co-operate with the security services, by the same token the government must be as open and transparent with the public as possible. What exactly is a “potential domestic security threat”? This would have been the first that citizens would have heard about this and it would have left them in a state of bewilderment. If a potential domestic security threat is anything like what occurs in other places then there would be good reason to be worried. The government should have at least tried to define the type of threat and the possible locale so that citizens themselves could be on the alert and provide assistance to law enforcement.
Instead, the government coupled this announcement with an acknowledgment of increased criminal activity and said that as a result of both of these situations the GPF and the GDF would institute operations in targeted areas. This further muddied matters as the government and its security experts would well know that increased criminal activity and a “potential domestic security threat” would demand different types and levels of responses and under the command of separate agencies. The latter for instance might require the activation of the SWAT unit while the former might require flooding the commercial centres and hotspots with more law enforcers.
The dissonance was further compounded by President Granger, in a recording of ‘The Public Interest’ on Thursday, who suggested that there is an ongoing campaign to paint the government and security forces in a negative light.
“I am suspicious… that there are some persons who are committing crimes to show that the police force and government are weak. We don’t know for sure what is taking place but many of these crimes have their origin in the weakening of the police force in the early days and so we have a very serious problem on our hands,” he said.
If the government and presumably its security forces don’t know for sure what is transpiring, it is ill-advised for the President to lend any credence to these suggestions and further exacerbate public anxieties. The President’s reference to his suspicion about the genesis of these crimes is also inappropriate. Suspicion should not be the basis for public discussion of any matter by the President particularly something as sensitive as crime.
It is the deployment of the military that requires the government to present a credible justification. The decision to call up the GDF in support of law enforcement should not be taken lightly; there must be compelling reasons for its mobilising particularly now in light of societal concerns about the heightened presence of the military and former military personnel in all spheres of life. Secondly, the appearance of the military on the streets in connection with increased criminal activity could well convey to the public and important stakeholders that the GPF is unable to restrain the spurt in crime and that the government is aware of this and concurs. This would not do well for the morale of the GPF coinciding as it does with the public dispute between the current Commissioner of Police and the former acting commissioner over promotions.
It is also worth noting that the acknowledgement of an increase in criminal activity and the introduction of the army comes after weeks of attempts by the government and the police to play down public concern over the crime rate.
With Christmas fast approaching and the daily banditry showing no signs of abating, the public pressure has no doubt propelled the government to consider different and stronger containment measures and this is how citizens will perceive Friday’s announcement of the Joint Services operations.
The reality is that 18 months after this government took office, following a long period in the opposition where it pronounced authoritatively on all aspects of law enforcement woes and prescribed numerous solutions, the attributes of the crime challenge remain the same. The government has failed to begin reversing the tide. The one bright spot has been the investigative work under Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum which has led to rapid arrests in major criminal cases and solutions to some that had been cold cases. That aside, the rampant criminality as is occurring now has continued, leaving householders and businesses in a state of dread. Bandits appear to have no fear of the police and the prospect of a quick response to beseiged householders from 911 is remote. Contract killings also continue, pointing to a seething underworld of revenge and deep connections to the narcotics business which continues to undermine law enforcement. Firearms of all types remain in the hands of the bandits despite last year’s gun amnesty by the government.
Saturday’s discovery of an arsenal of improvised weapons in the Camp Street jail and other prohibited items signals that, notwithstanding the tragic deaths of 17 prisoners there in March’s disastrous fire, prison security remains deeply compromised. When it took office 18 months ago, despite the longstanding knowledge of the overcrowding of the Camp Street jail and its many problems, no initiative was taken by the government to defuse what had been a dangerous situation for a long time. The fatal fire forced the issue but the problems still clearly persist.
As has been argued in these columns for many years, the state of insecurity in the country will not be rolled back unless there are fundamental reforms to policing and the framework in which it exists. This government, instead of using its entry to office to initiate sweeping reforms in the police force merely tinkered. There was no attempt to shake up the hierarchy and consider responses as radical as the introduction of professional law enforcers from outside of the local jurisdiction. Hopefully, the revived Security Sector Reform Programme will allow for clearer thinking on the way forward and how to comprehensively address corruption in the police force. In the interim, the onus is on the Granger administration to free the citizenry of the daily attacks by armed bandits and restore a sense of order.
