Sympathy for some, discretion for others

13.MAY.11

As if our country and government do not have enough on the plate, in terms of recovery of the economy and preservation of livelihoods following catastrophic disasters, natural and man-made,((more)) of local and international origin, St. Vincent and the Grenadines has another of its unwelcome political distractions. The issue this time is the decision of Police Commissioner Miller to exercise the discretion permitted him under the law to re-instate three convicted police officers to their status as law-enforcement officers. Those officers were convicted and lost their appeals on a charge related to brutalising a young man while in police custody.

The reinstatement and the subsequent political reaction have re-ignited political controversy in our country. Charges of political complicity on one hand, and attempts by the government to relegate it to a purely legalistic judgement, have stirred passions on both sides of the wide political chasm that is the social reality of St. Vincent and the Grenadines today. But, politics aside, the reinstatement decision has significant social implications for our country. This is a country where, in spite of undoubted progress in the observations of fundamental human rights, the issue of police brutality against citizens continues to be a persistent concern. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception among our people that, irrespective of the circumstances, there will always be sympathy for errant officers.

In this particular case, the decision of the Police Commissioner to re-instate the officers may well be a judgement call, backed up by the law, but it has serious social and political implications. First of all, there is now the unsavoury fact that the Police Force, to which ordinary citizens must go to obtain a Police Record now has within its ranks convicted persons. One cannot enter the Police Force with a criminal record. In fact, you cannot even get a job as a security guard without police clearance. It is now possible that convicted persons may be involved in vetting ordinary citizens.

Then there is the matter of relations with the Courts, before which the officers were convicted. How does a Magistrate or Judge relate to such re-instated officers, one of whom lied under oath, while another filed a false report? Can the testimony of officers like these be relied on in any matter before the Court?

No amount of trying to justify their actions on the basis of the alleged illegal actions of the victim can be excused. Human rights are entitled to all human beings, and the law must be equally applied.

At a time when calls are being made to re-instate three teachers whose only “crime” was to resign, as required by law, to contest the general elections on an opposition party ticket, the re-instatement of these police officers defies comprehension. What message does it give to the public, to other police officers, to teachers and public servants?