LAST Friday we reported that a special unit would be set up to look into accusations of crimes committed by police.
Police Commissioner Baki iterated that “there is no place in the constabulary for rogue elements .... I have no time for criminals in police uniform ...”
The National has long supported the commissioner’s determination to create a criminal-free RPNG Constabulary and we will continue to support his efforts and those of his senior hierarchy to help achieve that goal.
But we must confess that the seemingly endless list of alleged criminal offences committed by the constabulary suggests a far more deeply-rooted problem that was originally supposed.
We are beginning to wonder just how many rotten apples there are in the police barrel and just how difficult it may prove to be to rid the nation of that contaminated barrel and its contents.
One of the public sources of concern has always been the nature of internal investigations.
By definition it is hard for citizens to accept that the findings of an internal enquiry – or as Commissioner Baki proposes, a special police unit – can be just and balanced.
There are many reasons for this; together they have the ability to combine and reduce the perceived outcome of enquiries.
Having a selected group of policemen and women put in the position of assessing the culpability or otherwise of a colleague is fraught with difficulties.
As an observer remarked to us yesterday, the tendency within the force is for there to be one perception of a policeman accused of a killing but a sharply different view of an ordinary citizen so accused.
There will be a belief on the part of those involved in the enquiry that the member of the force “acted in self-defence” and cannot be held responsible for the death.
In the past, there have been cases where exoneration on the basis of “self-defence” have proven to be unshakeable, even when the circumstances of an incident have clearly suggested otherwise.
The point is that the public is today deeply suspicious of the findings reached at internal enquiries.
The frequency of serious or fatal incidents allegedly committed by police seems to have increased.
The number of bystanders who suffer severe injuries or even death appears to be increasing.
Obviously such people should not remain near the scene of a shoot-out or other police confrontation, but the point is they do – and it seems that the police can be indiscriminate in their use of their fire power.
Once again, self-defence is a familiar justification in such situations.
Defining guilty parties in the alleged sacking of villages, or off-duty confrontations involving reportedly drunken policemen, pose real problems.
And many other allegations come before these internal boards for hearing.
Police personnel occasionally come before the courts, generally on serious charges.
A decade or so has passed since a notorious series of drive-by killings were allegedly committed by policemen.
Some of those incidents ended up being heard behind closed doors; despite media agitation, some of the findings were debatable.
And there is another side to this issue, one that can crucify innocent serving police force members.
If these cases are heard internally, there is a possibility that those hearing them may have a strong dislike of the person or persons under examination. Because of that bias, police who are innocent of any crime could well find themselves out of the force and out of a job.
That is a further miscarriage of justice.
In the recent past we have been aware of a great deal of in-fighting in the RPNGC with a number of senior officers facing suspension and even dismissal.
There was every indication that personal jealousies and even disagreements fuelled by ethnic differences were at the root of some of these situations.
Commissioner Baki has said that it is “very important that police do not lose the trust and confidence of the public.”
A disciplined force must have the means to discipline its own members.
Nobody is questioning that right.
But serious cases that cast doubts on the perceived ability of internal boards or committees to determine should, in the interests of both the public and the police, be a matter for our courts.