Editorial | INDECOM should seek judicial review

No one who saw the parade of technologies and operational skills the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) put on at its expo last month could not but have been impressed by the display.

The exposition was part of the constabulary’s effort to show itself as a modern, people-centred, technologically driven organisation that is in a hurry to shed the old image of a jack-booted and corrupt institution, stoutly resistant, if not impervious, to change. Indeed, the theme of the expo was transformation.

The exercise achieved significant success. Many Jamaicans gained new insights into the force. In many respects, the expo – as the police constabulary’s chief, Antony Anderson, hoped it would – humanised police officers. They were not merely grim law enforcers, but professionals with myriad skills.

But as we noted in the aftermath of the exhibition, while the JCF’s employment of technology will help to improve the efficiency and accountability of the force, they will not themselves transform the institution, or rebuild the public’s confidence and trust in the organisation.

In other words, the JCF’s leadership must not conceive the introduction of technology as the transformation.

PEOPLE-BASED COMMITMENT

There has to be a strong, people-based commitment to fundamental cultural change. And accountability must be transparent. Piecemeal efforts are soon overwhelmed by what is sometimes imperceptible institutional resistance.

We were reminded of these risks last week by the latest complaint by Hugh Faulkner, the executive director of INDECOM (Independent Commission of Investigations), of the brickwall his agency encounters in trying to get information from the JCF on the status of cases in which it recommends disciplinary actions against police officers. INDECOM investigates complaints of abuse of authority, including excessive use of force against citizens by members of the security forces – the police, soldiers and prison warders.

During this year’s first quarter INDECOM investigated 200 cases, 86 per cent of which it found, the complaints were unsubstantiated. In three incidents it recommended that charges be preferred against three police officers; in another 25 cases it suggested disciplinary actions against 45 officers.

“From our calculations, in 86 per cent of the instances [of 28 cases], they [the police’s Professional Standards Oversight Bureau] are in agreement with INDECOM that disciplinary processes are to be proceeded with,” Mr Faulkner told journalists.

But INDECOM is unlikely to know what, if anything, happens from there, although it has been advised that its recommendations have been sent to the JCF’s administrative authorities. History suggests that the process will be snail-paced and lacking in transparency.

“Within the past few years I have seen one matter which was part-heard,” Mr Faulkner said. “We have not been advised as to the conclusion of that matter, so we are saying that the process seems to be lengthy and inconclusive.”

NOT THE FIRST TIME

This is not the first time INDECOM has publicly aired such complaints. Fourteen months ago, Mr Faulkner revealed that between January 2018 and June 2022, the agency submitted 80 reports to the JCF, with recommendations for disciplinary proceedings against 108 police officers. There have been no disciplinary hearings in any of the cases. If there were any, INDECOM was not told.

When it inquired about the matter, INDECOM was told that 36 of the reports were still being reviewed, and 38 had been reviewed by IPROB (The Inspectorate and Professional Standards Oversight Bureau) and sent to the JCF’s Administrative Branch for action. In six cases the standards bureau disagreed with the recommendations against the officers.

In 2017, Mr Faulkner’s predecessor, Terrence Williams, told Parliament that between 2010, the year of INDECOM’s launch, and the second half of 2017, the agency recommended 138 officers for disciplinary hearings. But at the time of the report none had been held. There were no explanations of the reason(s).

INDECOM Act obligates, as a default, the security forces to act on INDECOM’s disciplinary recommendations in the fashion and within a timeframe the agency suggests. However, under Section 23 (2) (b) of the law, if “the responsible officer (of a security force) decides not to comply with the recommendation, he shall give reasons for his decision”.

Decency requires that it happens. Good order, good governance and institutional trust demand it.

This failure to account, as related by Mr Faulkner, appears to be in discord with the perceived character of Major General Anderson, the police chief.

Members of the constabulary do not particularly like INDECOM. But the agency has shown its worth as an independent to which citizens can complain, as well as in the sharp decline in police homicides since its launch – from a high of 258 in 2013 to last year’s 134, including a low of 86 in 2019.

INDECOM has had several bruising court fights with the Police Federation, the union of rank and file officers, over its interpretation of the law, especially over whether it had prosecutorial powers. INDECOM should now possibly have a shot at the High Command, seeking judicial review on a claim of nonfeasance with respect to the JCF’s failure to meet its obligations on the question of disciplinary matters.