On August 30th, in a single fell swoop, President Granger, in one of the more significant decisions of his presidency up until now, shook up the leadership of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), bringing an end to a protracted period of public speculation regarding the future of law enforcement management in the Republic at a time when crime continues to be a matter of the greatest national concern.
The President’s eventual pick for the leadership of the Force comprises the following senior officers, all of whom, prior to their promotion, had held the rank of Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner Leslie James has been elevated to Commissioner of Police; Assistant Commissioner Paul Williams, to Deputy Commis-sioner, Administration; Assistant Commissioner Lyndon Alves, to Deputy Commissioner, Law Enforcement; Assistant Commissioner Nigel Hoppie, to Deputy Commissioner, Head Special Branch/Intelligence; and Assistant Commissioner Maxine Graham, to Deputy Commissioner, Operations. The announcement also embraced a number of senior transfers within the various Divisions and Branches of the Force, all, presumably, in an attempt at all-round improvement in the management of the Force at a decentralised level. The long-awaited announcement of a shakeup in the Force, the President was quoted as saying, has “improved the architecture of the Police Force so that instead of having a flat structure, we now have clearly defined responsibilities in those four deputy commissioners. So, things will be better. I am sure there will be better performance in those areas and other officers can now look forward to, in due course, filling those appointments.” We must hope that the President is correct in his judgement though we cannot automatically assume that his vision will become reality.
Before the announcement of promotions, much of the nation had immersed itself in a protracted guessing game worthy of the attention of the ‘bookies’ regarding the future ‘shape’ of the Force’s leadership, at least for the next few years. To those who were not close to the thinking of the President and the Police Service Commission on the matter, the failure to name the senior Assistant Commissioner David Ramnarine (who had up until then been acting as Commissioner) to the post, or even to promote him to the rank of Deputy Commissioner, probably came as a surprise. It appears, with hindsight, that the hapless Mr Ramnarine was never really ‘in the frame’ in the first place. Another name thought to have been in the reckoning, was the then Assistant Commissioner Paul Williams. While he was promoted to Deputy Commissioner, he too, was overlooked for the ‘Top Cop’ position.
Earlier in August, President Granger had seemingly dropped a broad hint regarding his own perspective on the issue of leadership in the Force by disclosing that he was looking for an “unbribable” Commissioner of Police. The pronouncement suggested that the President was not inclined to shy away from public perceptions of a GPF which continues to be dogged by accusations of a culture of ‘top down’ corruption. Here, it should be noted that with the exception of Mr Ramnarine and the now Commander of B Division, Assistant Com-missioner Clifton Hicken (who, on the basis of conventional seniority was also overlooked for promotion), the President is looking to what is roughly an unchanged ‘old guard’ to bring about the desired change. That fact has attracted some measure of public comment, though, in the absence of other options, we again have to wait and see.
For those of us concerned with history, it should be noted that the members of the present Police Commission – Paul Slowe, Clinton Conway, Vesta Adams, Michael Somersall and Claire Jarvis – are all new appointees and are, as well, retired Assistant Commissioners of Police, an interesting piece of history for what it is worth.
Watchers of the GPF are already comparing the task handed Commissioner James and his team to the cleaning up of the mythical Augean Stables. They preside over a Force possessed of a long-tarnished image and in the throes of a jerky reform process ‘powered’ by the British Government. Reducing crime, the fear of crime and restoring public confidence in the integrity and capability of the Force ought to be at the very highest point on their list of priorities.
As the new leadership seeks to measure improvement in the performance of the Force, they cannot afford to emulate the error of their predecessors by holding forth hugely subjective statistics that have to do with percentage increases/decreases in reported cases of crimes, and what is loosely described as ‘clear up rates’ which, so often, appear decidedly at variance with the situation on the ground. This ruse has, up until now, been fooling no one. There exists a universal recognition that the ‘numbers game’ amounts to a puerile, unimaginative and ultimately unconvincing attempt to seek to misleadingly ‘massage’ the image of the Force in the right direction. Such statistics are by no means a reliable barometer with which to measure the effectiveness of the Force. There is, for example, the danger of what is sometimes called ‘ghosting,’ manipulating statistics in an effort to make the numbers ‘come out right,’ so to speak, a phenomenon publicly alluded to by a now-retired senior police officer in a public comment some time ago.
To usher in positive change, Commissioner James and his leadership team must begin by refreshing themselves on their mandate as documented in Chapter 16:01 of the Police Act. It is, in the final analysis, to the citizens of the country that they must look for feedback on their performance so that effective policing must go beyond substantive law-enforcement. The Force is possessed of members who are capable of conducting citizens’ surveys and other analytical probes to measure performance, as distinct from what, invariably, is a profusion on uncontextualised statistics that do no more than mislead. Perhaps one of the fatal flaws in our approach to policing is the notion that law and order is almost entirely about its enforcement dimension and that maintaining open of lines of communication with audiences is peripheral to the discharge of the responsibility.
The current named ‘top brass’ of the GPF have a collective service experience that exceeds 150 years. Cumulatively, mandatory age-related retirement (and other unforeseen considerations taken account of), they have, amongst them, almost two decades of service left to give. Who will replace them and those other senior members of the Force below the rank of Deputy Commissioner, who will themselves also retire about the same time as the recently appointed Commissioner and Deputies, is something that has to be considered now.
Here, the issue of succession planning and strategic career development in the Force arises. Accordingly, focus must alight on the ‘middle managers,’ the men and women who will incrementally replace the retirees currently in leadership positions. Exposing them to advanced police training, including formal training at the University of Guyana and institutions overseas, must begin now.
If we are yet to learn the contents of the report on police reform submitted by the British police expert in January, we can safely assume that it alludes to, among other things, advanced professional training. Those apart, front line policemen and women must be prepared for upward mobility when the middle managers are elevated.
Information available to this newspaper indicates that the new Police Force leadership team, their varied and collective experience apart, comprises persons qualified (at university level) and others who are, even now, pursuing further studies. This should not distract them from what, as of August 30th, are decidedly more onerous duties. If, however, their ability to ‘deliver’ in their jobs is likely to be enhanced by advanced learning (as one hopes would be the case), then it should be encouraged.
Perhaps the toughest task of the new leadership of the Force is its most basic one, that is, to instill into the men and women under their command, the necessity to demonstrate a focused commitment to the task of policing and a clear professional understanding of the true meaning of service and protection. There is a school of thought which espouses the view that the key impediments to effective policing (whilst we admit that there are others like a scarcity of the requisite tools and distressingly low salaries), are the pockets of indiscipline, irregularity and a misunderstanding of the true meaning of service and protection that permeate the Force from top down. During what one suspects was a diligent search from amongst the smallest of pools for a Police Commissioner, President Granger declared his key mission to be to find an “unbribable” candidate. In so saying, the President, one suspects, was making a none too subtle comment on what he saw as the Achilles’ heel of the Force. At its highest levels. We must hope that Commissioner James and his team take the hint.
