The Georgetown City Coun-cil yesterday passed a no-confidence motion against the Chief Constable, Andrew Foo.
The motion, which was moved by constituency Councillor Denroy Tudor at the council’s statutory meeting, was carried with 19 members of the council voting in its favour. Two councillors voted against the motion and three abstained.
As a result of the motion being carried, a report has to be sent to the Local Government Commission so that a decision can be taken on the way forward.
Prior to the motion being debated, four constabulary officers were given on-the-spot promotions, which were conferred by Mayor Ubraj Narine. Acting Town Clerk Sherry Jerrick told the council that the Local Government Commission was informed about the appointments. A few of the officers were those who had been disciplined by the Chief Constable in the past. Officer Peter Livingstone was appointed to the post of Deputy Chief Constable.
Foo was asked to leave the council chambers when the motion came up for debate.
Tudor, who noted that the motion sought the immediate dismissal of Foo but with all of his benefits, stressed that its goal was to ensure a shift as it relates to the City Constabulary.
He charged that “laissez faire” leadership and “lack of management” had pervaded the constabulary. He mentioned that at a committee meeting, a recommendation for the drafting of a security plan was made but no action was taken in relation to it. “We finally found out that there wasn’t any plan—no security plan—that was put in place for Russell Square and we have evidence, we had the vendors there that have been complaining tirelessly as it relates to these issues,” Tudor said.
“We are trying to ensure that our vendors can move comfortably. We are trying to ensure that residents that traverse the Stabroek Square can be able to move without any cause of fear or apprehension,” the councillor said, while adding that even if complaints about little resources are made, the department must be able to manage what it has.
Tudor went on to say that residents have been complaining about the service of the constabulary. He referenced the section of the Local Government Act which refers to how the chief constable and constabulary should operate. He said that there should be inspections, drills, parades and exercises but he could not recall when he last saw training for officers being carried out. “And that goes to show, if there’s a problem at the head, the tail will fail,” the councillor said. “Let us just remember that this motion is going against the ineptitude, the mediocrity that would have permeated within the city constabulary and it’s ensuring that we, as a municipality, will not be damned any further,” he added.
Councillor Eketa Edwards, who seconded the motion, told the council that the ineffective management of the city constabulary had caused residents of Georgetown to not feel safe in the city. Edwards made reference to several issues, including disorderly parking within the city. “Business proprietors, residents and tourists are unsafe as they are robbed, stalls are broken into and sadly no action is being taken to rectify this issue,” she lamented.
Edwards went on to recall seeing a number of city police officers around the city a few years ago but noted that the numbers have declined. “I must make mention of the inability of the city constable to carve plans for the safety of the council’s property… or may I mention the time a homeless person was able to take out louvre windows and replace them right in the council’s compound for a night’s rest and he did so without gaining notice,” she added.
A number of other councillors stood up in support of the motion, including Councillor David Allicock, who spoke on the issues coming out of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into City Hall that was conducted last year.
Allicock stated that the chairman of the CoI stated that it appears that the chief constable lacked credibility. He went on to quote from the CoI report, stating that the constabulary had launched a number of investigations and as months and even years elapsed, the investigations had yet to be concluded. “The CoI report stated that when Foo was questioned, he gave a story and caused a report to be prepared to corroborate his story. The CoI reports state… ‘This is more than improper conduct, it borders on criminality.’ Their words not mine,” Allicock added.
Councillor Bishram Kuppen, who also was in favour of the motion, called the day an important one as he said action was finally going to be taken against not only one officer but hopefully against many other heads of departments. Kuppen’s statement was met with a rousing cheer from the other councillors. “The constabulary does not have any security plan. There is no succession planning. That question was raised before. We have robberies going on in the city, we have businesses complaining that there is no security at all here, we have missing weapons that they cannot account for in the constabulary department,” Kuppen said while adding that there are officers within the constabulary that are obviously in need of training but there is no training being done.
The councillor went on to say that he personally made submissions to the CoI about many deficiencies of several departments, including the constabulary. He hoped that the action taken would send a message to the other heads of departments.
