The relationship between the Guyana Police Force (GPF) and Guyanese taxpayers it serves rests upon an elementary social obligation: Guyanese citizens surrender certain freedoms to lawful authority in exchange for protection, operational compliance to the law and the impartial administration of justice. Through taxation, they finance the personnel, equipment, infrastructure and investigative machinery intended to fulfil that obligation. The effectiveness of the institution must therefore be assessed not merely by its capacity to arrest and prosecute citizens, but by its demonstrated compliance with the laws, professional standards and constitutional protections governing the exercise of police power.
An examination of the GPF’s institutional performance requires measurable indicators. Crime prevention, investigative accuracy, custodial safety, proportionality in the use of force, evidential integrity and professional accountability are distinct dimensions of police effectiveness. Progress in one area is not progress in another.
The Government’s 2026 mid-year report recorded a 16.9 per cent reduction in serious crime during the first six months of the year. Investments in training, transportation and surveillance technology have accompanied efforts to modernise policing. These achievements warrant examination, but statistical reductions must be evaluated against consistent recording practices, reporting rates and the reliability of underlying data. A reduction in reported crime is not a comprehensive measure of institutional integrity.
The recent death of Gavin Kennard Douglas in the Vreed-en-Hoop Police Station lock-ups provides a particularly serious test of the Force’s custodial obligations. Douglas, aged 32, died on October 31 while detained by police. A post-mortem examination reportedly identified a brain haemorrhage resulting from blunt-force trauma. Five serving police ranks were subsequently charged with murder and remanded to prison.
The charges established the seriousness of the allegations, the courts will determine individual criminal responsibility. The institutional examination must nevertheless extend to custody supervision, medical observations, detention records, the preservation of evidence and the conduct of officers responsible for Douglas’s welfare.
The United Nations Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death provides an internationally recognised framework requiring potentially unlawful deaths, including deaths in custody, to receive prompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation. Its application supplies a measurable standard against which investigative procedures are assessed.
The allegations involving Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh, Head of the Special Organised Crime Unit, introduce another institutional test. In October, the Police Force announced that Karimbaksh had been sent on leave following allegations of rape and threatening behaviour made by a female police inspector. Commissioner Clifton Hicken subsequently withdrew a pre-retirement leave directive after its legal authority was challenged, and subsequent reporting indicated that Karimbaksh remained on duty.
More troubling is the administrative uncertainty surrounding the investigation itself. In correspondence dated November 3, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the complainant’s attorney that it did not possess the investigation file. This followed reports suggesting that the investigation had been completed and the file forwarded for prosecutorial advice.
The whereabouts and procedural status of that file require clarification. Was it completed, transmitted, received or retained by investigators? What documentary records establish its movement? Such questions are central to the reliability of criminal investigations. The allegations against Karimbaksh remain unproven, but now the investigation’s institutional accountability requires an independently verifiable explanation of the file’s tracking system.
The October 12 shooting controversy involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and Senior Superintendent Prem Narine, Head of Special Branch, presents another examination of evidential integrity and police use of force. Narine reported hearing what appeared to be a gunshot as a vehicle carrying Mohamed passed his Kitty residence. He subsequently discharged several rounds from his service firearm towards the vehicle. Mohamed and two companions were later charged with firearm-related offences and attempting to obstruct justice. They pleaded not guilty.
The subsequent emergence of surveillance recordings and disputed accounts concerning the recovery of the alleged firearm has raised questions requiring forensic examination. New footage reported on November 10 has added to the controversy over the sequence of events.
The Guyana Police Force’s obligations are straightforward. Investigators must establish the origin of the alleged discharge, the reliability of recovered exhibits, the continuity of custody and the evidential significance of surveillance recordings. Narine’s acknowledged discharge of his weapon requires examination under the applicable standards governing necessary and proportionate force.
Article 3 of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that force should be employed only when strictly necessary and to the extent required in the performance of duty. These principles provide an international benchmark for evaluating the justification and proportionality of police intervention.
The Force’s own November reporting disclosed that fifteen serving ranks had faced criminal charges involving offences ranging from murder and firearm-related allegations to theft, assault and breaches of the Cybercrime Act during the preceding months. The initiation of proceedings demonstrates that some allegations have entered the judicial process. It also raises questions about recruitment screening, supervision, disciplinary monitoring and the identification of misconduct before serious consequences occur.
These developments should be examined as institutional evidence. A rigorous assessment would measure complaint frequency, investigative duration, disciplinary outcomes, repeated misconduct, prosecution results and the extent to which recommendations are implemented. Without such information, any assurance of reform is difficult to evaluate.
There is also an economic dimension. Taxpayers finance the Force through public expenditure and bear the wider costs of investigative failures, litigation, misconduct and declining cooperation with law enforcement. The value obtained from that expenditure should therefore be assessed through independently verifiable performance outcomes, not merely budgetary allocations or the quantity of equipment acquired.
Public trust is itself an operational resource. Citizens who believe investigations are impartial are more likely to report offences, provide evidence and cooperate with lawful police procedures. The credibility of law enforcement consequently depends upon demonstrable fairness as much as coercive capacity.
The Office of Professional Responsibility, the Police Service Commission and the Ministry of Home Affairs occupy important positions within this accountability framework. Their effectiveness must be judged through documented decisions, transparent procedures, timely investigations and the enforcement of applicable standards.
A law-abiding, taxpaying population is entitled to expect police officers who respect constitutional protections, preserve evidence, use force lawfully, safeguard detainees and submit to the same criminal processes applied to ordinary citizens. These are neither exceptional demands nor privileges granted at the discretion of the authorities. They are fundamental obligations arising from the public character of policing.
A proper measure of the Guyana Police Force therefore is how consistently that public institution is subjected to lawful, evidential and independent scrutiny. The GPF must be assured that public expenditure does not purchase public confidence, which apparently the Force wants to earn, but without demonstrable compliance with the obligations for which it was established.
Discussion