The fact that two gold miners, Donavan Washington and Zaheer Mohammed Sherriff had their lives violently taken on Sunday, at Arimu Backdam in Region Seven, while they were transporting gold from one location to another, provides yet another poignant example that illustrates the dimensions of cold and ruthless criminal activity that continues to target sections of the business community in Guyana. The targeting of gold miners, believed to be moving significant quantities of gold across remote parts of the country, is part of a wider problem of bandits targeting what they believe to be the vulnerable sections of the business community as a whole.
One of the things that the authorities now have to understand is that the oil-driven new-found wealth that manifests itself in a continually transforming business environment requires responses in the country’s overall security infrastructure to take account of the fact that criminals as much as legitimate entrepreneurial types would be keen to take advantage of the fast transforming environment. Whether or not law enforcement has fashioned a strategic plan tailored to take account of the enhanced security needs of the business community is not something that the public would necessarily be aware of though it is not uncommon to hear comments emanating from the business community which suggests that it places no great faith in conventional law enforcement.
Certainly, one of features of what we now loosely describe as our ‘oil economy’ has been the emergence of a plethora of new enterprises offering security services as well as pre-existing ones that are offering services that appear to be extended to suit the circumstances of the day. Whilst all this is occurring, the image of the Guyana Police Force continues to be eroded by circumstances which are due, palpably, to on-the-ground underperformance and to what some members of the Force say has been the seeming inability of the Force’s high command to change with the times. Indeed, it often does not appear that state-controlled law enforcement possesses an effective response to what now appear to be the several law and order anomalies confronting the country.
As our much talked-about ‘oil money’ begins to manifest itself in the society, in various ways, the impact of this on the society as a whole and on the business sector, in particular, becomes increasingly evident. As has already been mentioned, what the acceleration of business-related activity has also done is to open up fresh craters of access to an already pre-existing and flourishing crime ‘sector’. Here, it is altogether fair to make the point that given what have been clear indications that entrepreneurship of various types continues to grow, law enforcement, not least the Guyana Police Force, is compelled to raise its own ‘game.’ The reality is that public perceptions (including criminal perceptions) of the GPF has given rise to the popular view that unless we significantly raise our public security ‘game’ the promise of a thriving ‘petro economy’ might well become seriously compromised by an uncontrollable surge in daring, ruthless and ‘high risk’ types of criminal activity that will become more selective in their targeting of potential victims.
This is a circumstance that both the government and the private sector, alike, are going to have to face, down the road and needless to say, potential investors themselves have something to say about crime and security in our ‘investment haven.’ We have now witnessed more than sufficient to cause us to realize that the GPF and the various other state-run public security entities are leagues away from being ‘up with’ the expanding frontiers of criminal activity. The reality here is that where effective fighting crime is concerned,
state-managed law enforcement, not infrequently, provides us with not a great deal of reassurance. Leaving aside for the moment, the issue of security in the mining sector, it is widely felt the GPF is considerably behind the eight ball across the wider law enforcement spectrum.
When one looks at the frequency with which gold-related robberies occur in the course of the movement of consignments of the precious metal from their source to their various coastal destinations, over vast swathes of vulnerable territory, it is clear that the prevailing circumstances under which the movement of gold is effected is unsustainable. The question that arises here is whether the ‘extent’ of the security matches the value of the goods being transported. The answer, in this instance, unquestionably, is no. The second consideration has to do with issues relating to the ‘secrecy/confidentiality’ and discretion that are applied when activities relating to the movement of gold across ‘risky’ territory are taking place. Demanding security-related assignments like the movement of gold over extensive and ‘risky’ terrain ought, surely, to be attended by strict security protocols that equip those arrangements to respond competently and, hopefully, effectively, to attacks by brigands. Here we are talking about security details that might include some level of involvement by the Guyana Police Force and here we believe that it is entirely reasonable to ask the miners to meet the costs associated with such security. Confidentiality, too, is a major consideration.
Here one might add that given the high risk associated with exercises that are attended by a considerable level of likely danger, the movement of gold under thorough ‘security’ procedures that do not dwell within some officially approved security framework (as appears to be the case at this time) should be outlawed. The fact of the matter is that there are instances in which activities to do with gold mining do not fall within the purview of state oversight. In a general sense, official control/jurisdiction over aspects of the operational behaviour of the sector is tenuous insofar as law enforcement is concerned. It is widely known, for example, that considerations like gold declaration are, to say the least, matters of particular concern. This, despite what we know have been attempts to conceal such information from public view. Distance and accessibility, we are also told, impact negatively on aspects of official oversight of the sector.
The killing of the two miners and the losses to their respective families ought, surely, to be sufficient, to now cause the authorities, in collaboration with the miners, to contemplate and thereafter move with haste to implement a significantly upgraded security regimen for the movement of gold from the respective mining sights to their various destinations. The arrangement for safe movement of gold from interior locations to the requisite destinations in the capital should be an issue to be addressed by the relevant state security institutions and the body representing the miners. There is no good reason why such discourses should not begin immediately.
