Recent events involving the Guyana Police Force raise serious questions about its leadership, the reliability of its public statements and its ability to investigate matters involving its own senior officers. The controversy surrounding Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh and the shooting incident involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and Special Branch head Senior Superintendent Prem Narine bring these concerns into sharp focus.
The Force is asking the public to accept assurances of professionalism but its handling of these matters supplies compelling reasons for scrutiny. Yes indeed, both cases require lawful procedures, reliable evidence and safeguards against conflicts of interest therefore public confidence cannot be secured by declarations from Police Headquarters alone.
On October 8, the Force announced that Karimbaksh had been sent on leave pending an investigation into allegations of rape and threatening behaviour. It also disclosed that the female Police Inspector who made the complaint had been transferred.
By October 13, it was reported that Commissioner Clifton Hicken had withdrawn the leave instruction following a challenge from Mr Karimbaksh’s attorney. Mr Hicken reportedly acknowledged the constitutional allocation of authority and stated that further action concerning leave would have to be taken by the appropriate authority.
This sequence exposes a failure of preparation at the highest level. Before announcing that a deputy commissioner had been sent on leave, the leadership should have established what lawful measure had been taken and whether it could withstand challenge. It is ironical that an institution responsible for enforcing the law could not be exact in identifying the legal basis for its own administrative decisions.
The difficulty was already known. On October 2, Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond acknowledged that the Police Service Commission was not constituted while discussing the possibility of administrative leave. Its absence therefore raises a question extending beyond the Commissioner: why was an essential oversight mechanism unavailable when a serious complaint against a senior officer required an effective response?
Mr Karimbaksh is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to challenge decisions affecting his office. The complainant is equally entitled to protection against retaliation and an impartial investigation. The Force should explain, without compromising her privacy, how her safety, professional standing and access to the complaints process are being protected.
The matter involving the Leader of the Opposition presents another urgent test. According to the police account published on October 13, Mr Narine fired his service weapon towards a vehicle carrying Mr Mohamed after hearing what appeared to be a gunshot near his Kitty residence. Police reported recovering an unlicensed pistol from the vehicle and spent shells near the residence.
Mr Mohamed’s attorney, Siand Dhurjon, disputes that account. He denies that Mr Mohamed or his companions fired a weapon and alleges that searches initially uncovered no firearm before one subsequently appeared. Those counter-allegations require investigation, just as the police claims require proof.
The public needs an investigation capable of examining both accounts without deference to political office or police rank. Who fired first? What do available recordings show? Do ballistic findings connect the recovered firearm to the spent cartridge? Who controlled the vehicle between its interception and the reported discovery of the weapon? Mr Narine’s discharge of his firearm must receive scrutiny alongside the allegations against the occupants.
The circumstances are particularly sensitive because Mr Narine is also a witness in the Mohameds’ extradition proceedings—a role the government emphasised in its October 13 statement. Protecting a witness is essential. Establishing an investigation sufficiently independent of an officer personally involved in the incident is equally essential to its credibility.
The government’s intervention adds another concern. Its statement characterised its account as “uncontroverted” and described Mr Mohamed’s companions as “henchmen”, while acknowledging that investigations remained underway. Such language risks prejudging a disputed matter. The executive should protect the investigative process and the safety of those involved while allowing evidence to determine responsibility.
Questions about the Force’s explanations had already arisen during the extradition proceedings. In September, an apparent discrepancy surfaced between Mr Narine’s testimony that working notes were burnt near a condemned furnace and the Force’s subsequent explanation that they were disposed of in an official incinerator. The Force maintained that relevant official records had been preserved and that no documents of evidential value were destroyed. The issue warrants attention because accurate recordkeeping and faithful descriptions of testimony are fundamental to justice.
Meanwhile, on September 17, the Force announced an investigation into allegations that police and immigration ranks along the Lethem Trail and in Lethem received payments to facilitate the movement of foreign nationals. Those allegations remain to be established. Their seriousness nevertheless requires follow-through beyond the announcement of an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation.
Taken together, these events expose weaknesses that deserve sustained public examination: uncertainty over disciplinary authority, conflicts arising when police investigate senior colleagues, disputed accounts of evidence and executive language that risks anticipating investigative findings. They do not establish every allegation as true. They demonstrate why credible oversight is indispensable.
The Guyana Police Force exercises powers capable of taking liberty and endangering life. Its explanations must therefore withstand questioning, its evidence must withstand examination and its leadership must act within clearly established authority. The public is entitled to a Force whose conduct can survive the scrutiny it so readily directs at others.
Discussion