Dear Editor,
The Thursday July 15, 2022 editions of the Stabroek News and Kaieteur News carried front page headlines, positing that a senior police officer will be charged for a breach of discipline for giving instructions to his juniors to trail Aubrey Norton, Leader of the Opposition. The Stabroek News screamed, “Superintendent to be charged over order to trail Norton.” Kaieteur News was in a similar mood with, “Senior Police Officer to be charged for instructing juniors to stalk Aubrey Norton.”
According to the Stabroek News an investigation was carried out by the Guyana Police Force’s (GPF) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) after days of questioning over why cops were trailing Norton and the legal advice was given. The news agency further stated, “Contacted by Stabroek News yesterday before the police statement was issued, OPR Head, Assistant Superintendent Elson Baird confirmed that the investigation had been completed and the file had been sent for legal advice. “ The police have not refuted the above statement.
During the course of the investigation the Head of the OPR was an Assistant Superintendent. Hence, he could not have lawfully investigated an alleged breach of discipline committed by Superintendent Alistair Roberts his senior. This is shocking. A junior officer cannot lawfully investigate his senior for an alleged breach of discipline. If it is a criminal matter under investigation rank or seniority will not come into play. In that case a constable can investigate a superintendent. This investigation is a major breach of the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17; 01. Here is what Section 5 (1) of the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17:01 states about the investigation of offences against discipline, “Every alleged commission of an offence against discipline under this Act shall be investigated as soon as practicable by a member of the Force not below the rank of sergeant and of a higher rank than the member of the Force who is alleged to have committed the offence.”
In addition, during the course of a disciplinary investigation, the investigating officer shall comply with Section 5 (3) of the Act. It states, “The investigating officer shall as soon as practicable, inform the member of the Force alleged to have committed the offence in writing in a language he understands of the offence which he is alleged to have committed, and the particulars of the facts constituting the offence, and of his right to refuse to make any written or oral statement to the investigating officer unless he otherwise desires.” It is apparent that this was not done during the illegal investigation.
Therefore, it is apposite to note that Superintendent Alistair Roberts was not afforded the God given and legal right to be heard. It is amazing that person/s in authority who handled the file did not detect that the investigating officer committed fatal breaches of the Police (Discipline) Act Chapter 17:01 alluded to above. Did they incorrectly utilise the ‘ Forbidden Fruit of the Poisonous Tree’ in deciding whether or not to recommend a charge against Superintendent Alistair Roberts under the Act. This is a gross miscarriage of justice. The rule of law must prevail.
I rest my case.
May God help the Guyana Police Force.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Retired)
