Dr Alfred Sangster, writing in the Jamaica Observer dated Wednesday, June 14, 2017 in a letter to the editor headlined ‘Disband INDECOM [Independent Commission of Investigations] and re-establish Civilian Oversight Authority’, declared that it is his view that INDECOM should be replaced with the Police Civilian Oversight Authority. However, I write to firmly disagree with his warped viewpoint.

The fact of the matter is that INDECOM was established by the former Bruce Golding-led Administration to investigate highly controversial police shootings to determine responsibility and see whether to formally lay criminal charges against the police. Before the establishment of INDECOM, the police’s fatal shooting rate was very high and averaged approximately 350 per year. Since the formation of INDECOM, the yearly police fatality rate for citizens has fallen dramatically to less than 160 per year.

Police officers who fearlessly, consistently, and professionally adhere to the law and the constabulary’s use of force policy have absolutely nothing to fear from INDECOM, and it is of vast importance that the police commissioner makes known to the police force that they have a major duty and responsibility to strictly follow the law.

National Security Minister Robert Montague, through the Government, should proceed forthwith to employ and assign a specific number of lawyers who are attached to the police force to represent police officers charged with offences by INDECOM. It is unfair, not equitable, and unjustified for police officers charged by INDECOM for criminal offences to be forced to find the financial resources out of their own pockets to employ lawyers to represent them in court for cases in relation to their normal course of police duties.

The fact is that INDECOM is performing a very important function in its overall investigative framework and should not at all be dismantled. No need to re-establish the former Police Civilian Oversight Authority. Further, there is no need for any oversight body to be put into operation for INDECOM. Parliament already has oversight responsibility for INDECOM which can be summoned to Parliament to answer questions at any time. What is required, I dare say, is that INDECOM should be given additional investigators and resources so that they can be in a much better position to carry out their duties on a case by case basis and expand their regional offices. That is what is needed, Dr Sangster.

I cannot understand why Dr Alfred Sangster and the Raymond Wilson-led Police Federation are on a campaign for the Government to dismantle INDECOM when it is playing a pivotal, substantial, and cardinal role in the fight against reducing unwarranted, unjustified, and unlawful police killings.

One of the major challenges facing the police commissioner is the extensive levels of corruption within the police force. This corruption within the force is having a negative impact and effect on the force’s overall capacity and capability to fight the country’s prodigious crime problems. A major sustained effort and coordinated strategy must be conceptualised and judiciously implemented by the commissioner to extensively investigate corrupt officers and remove them from the force.

Additionally, a senior police officer recently publicly stated on a radio talk show programme that police intelligence suggests that police officers are getting deeply involved with scammers, and efforts are being made progressively to investigate them and criminally charge them then expel them from the force on conviction in the courts. Police officers from western Jamaica who are involved with scammers should be monitored and investigated and be charged for their collusion with those notorious scammers.

The Police Services Commission, chaired by Ambassador Gordon Shirley, should be more transparent with the public in informing us about disciplinary measures and penalties that are levied against gazetted police officers. Police Commissioner Quallo needs the full support of us citizens, the Cabinet, and the Police Services Commission in the fight against the country’s devastating crime problems.

There is no need for the prime minister to be wanting to promulgate into law a new legislation to give the police more powers to go into communities and detain individuals indefinitely, and search premises and houses without warrant. The proposed Special Security and Community Development Measures Bill is far too drastic, severe, harsh, and would give the police additional powers which would allow and facilitate police abuse, an unjustified level of infringement on citizens’ intrinsic constitutional rights, and an unacceptable amount of invasion of citizens’ lawful rights. Opposition Leader Peter Phillips is spot on when he publicly stated that there is no need for any law in relation to the police force. The current laws are sufficient as outlined in the Constabulary Force Act.

robertdalley1@hotmail.com