Key stakeholders are in the dark about the revised Security Sector Reform Action Plan

Dear Editor, The Government of Guyana recently announced that a security expert has arrived in our country to superintend the implementation of a revised Security Sector Reform Action Plan (SSRAP). The revised plan SSRAP (3), has not been published on the Ministry of Public Security (MOPS) website neither has it been circulated to members of the National Assembly nor presented to members of the Parliamentary Oversight Committee of the Security Sector, nor the private sector as a non-state actor.

In other words, key stakeholders are in the dark on a matter we could consider to be of national importance and of public interest. This constitutes a grave oversight on the part of government and immediate steps should be taken, before it’s too late, to correct this unacceptable situation. Some time last year, a British consultancy firm, Olive Green, visited Guyana and made the rounds. They met with a delegation from the opposition PPP/C courtesy of the Ministry of the Presidency. The consultants were fully briefed about the former PPP/ C government’s vision of security sector reform, the practical steps as well as the legal measures and institutional arrangements it had initiated to implement elements of its own Security Sector Reform Action Plan,(SSRAP2) which , as was publicly announced, was to be funded from government’s coffers.

The delegation was advised that three factors were critical for any security sector reforms to be successfully implemented in Guyana.

First, there was the need to take into account the reform measures that were already in place within the sector; second, unless there was a serious buy in from the key players in the sector itself, i.e. the Guyana Police Force (GPF), the Guyana Prison Service (GPS) and the Guyana Fire Service (GFS), the reforms contemplated would end up dead in the water, especially if the subject ministry, as the implementation agency, was not ‘on the ball’ in so far as its oversight role is concerned. Thus far, we are reliably informed that the office of the British expert is located at the Ministry of the Presidency.

We do not know whether the expert sits on the Defence Board or the National Security Committee chaired by the President himself.

Finally, the most critical factor, is the role of and the intra-relationship between the leaderships of the GPF, the GPS and the GFS and the technical, civilian bodies tasked with the responsibility of assisting the three aforementioned disciplined services to implement their respective action plans. Experience shows that ranks in these organizations are usually averse to being advised by civilians on issues which they conveniently describe as “operational matters” when in fact these measures are mainly aimed at capacity building and institutional strengthening. Passive resistance, undermining the reforms and raising false claims of “civilian intrusiveness” by fifth columnists buried within the ranks of the disciplined services are bound to result in the failure of the reforms, the best efforts of the policy-makers notwithstanding.

It is expected that pursuance of these goals would follow independent processes, but would eventually morph into a single and integral objective, viz the comprehensive and overall success of the strategic reforms of the

security sector.

There is however always the danger that, based on past experience, unless there is that institutional commitment and acceptance of the efficacy of these reforms at the highest, middle and lowest levels of these organizations, they will simply be running on the spot and ending up deforming rather than reforming their respective organizations.

In so far as financing SSRAP(3) is concerned, again the public is in the dark.

At least we knew that the Britishinspired SSRAP (1) was to be funded to the tune of US$4.7million. Also, we knew that the PPP/C government had committed a matching G$ sum to finance its own SSRAP (2) from the national treasury.

When the Olive Green Consultants met with the team from the opposition PPP/C we were informed that no specific sum of money had been identified to finance SSRAP (3); however, the consultants informed us that they were favourably disposed to recommend to government partial funding of the plan by the Guyanese private sector since the latter would be a principal beneficiary of the plans for security reform when implemented.

The problem is, if the private sector is not an integral part of the plan and has no oversight role or place in its implementation why should they fund something they were never involved in finally settling?

What will make local private sector financing of SSRAP (3) even more challenging is the current downturn in the economy and the devastating impact it is having on the private businesses and the manufacturing sector. Also, the private sector, from a security perspective, would have an interest in the rate return for its investment in SSRAP(3).

This is a matter that requires urgent and constructive discussion between government and the private sector in the near future.

The arrival in Guyana of the security expert comes just on the eve of the convening of the Annual Police Officers’ Conference of the Guyana Police Force.

It is expected that his participation in this year’s conference would allow him to better understand the culture built up over the years in the GPF, its internal workings and machinations, its positive and negative characteristics, its hangover from the colonial past as well as its challenges and opportunities to become a real, effective and efficient service to all the citizens of Guyana without fear or favour.

Yours faithfully, Clement J Rohee Fmr Minister of Home Affairs