EDITORIAL - Explain O'Gilvie's'fit-and-proper' report

AMONG THE persons detained by the security forces in the exercise of their emergency powers is Justin O'Gilvie, a business associate of reputed crime boss Christopher Coke, the attempted arrest of whom led to the west Kingston uprising by criminal gunmen.

We do not believe that the action by the constabulary against Mr O'Gilvie would have been wanton or arbitrary, but rather the result of credible intelligence, if not indictable evidence. That intelligence, we presume, would have been accumulated over time, rather than being the fruit of the day of the May 23 declaration of the state of emergency in Kingston and St Andrew.

Which is why we insist that the police commissioner, Mr Owen Ellington, must not only demand a full accounting of the actions of some of his senior officers, but where necessary, institute disciplinary actions against them, to the full extent allowable by the law. And Mr Ellington must, in the process, be open and transparent in his actions.

We raise this issue in the face of our report on Sunday, quoting Rosalyn Campbell, the executive director of the Private Security Regulatory Authority, that two years ago, a senior police officer gave Mr O'Gilvie a glowing recommendation in support of his application for a security company called Bulls Eye Ltd. Mr Coke is, or was, a partner in that company, but had stepped down as a director when, apparently, the information required from directors became intrusive.

Mr O'Gilvie, however, was subsequently painted fit and proper for a security company licence, we were told, by a senior officer of the Constant Spring divisional police headquarters.

So good was the report, Ms Campbell acknowledged, that based on it, he would have had no problem receiving a licence for importing firearms, if he had applied.

None of this, of course, suggests corruption or ill motive of any police officer involved in the matter. And we make no such accusation.

However, we believe that it, at least, raises questions of judgement and/or the criteria used by the constabulary to determine who is fit and proper to assume sensitive roles, with potential consequences to national security. This, though, is not only an issue for the police. For, as we noted yesterday, the protocols used by political leaders and bureaucrats for the award of government contracts are sufficiently elastic to escape seemingly rigid rules. It is easy for public officials to declare how scrupulous they were in applying 'best practices' and to assure that contracts were within the guidelines.

As Mr Ellington knows, it is not only the vilely corrupt that have to be excised from the constabulary. Those who are incompetent, naive or display egregiously poor judgement can have no place in the force. But as we suggested before, in this go, Mr Ellington might wish to start with those senior police officers who used to attend to Mr Coke at his Tivoli Gardens redoubt.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.