Days of silence from the Guyana Police Force (GPF) on the controversial handling of Deputy Superintendent Phiona Harris have raised questions about transparency and accountability within the institution. After mounting public and media pressure, the GPF finally issued a press statement on December 9, 2024, attempting to clarify its position on the allegations of Harris’s transfer and the broader fallout surrounding Adonika Aulder, the wife of Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus, who left Guyana for medical treatment.
The GPF’s delayed response has done little to quell the suspicions of critics, who argue that the Force’s lack of immediate clarity allowed speculation and distrust to fester. Now, the statement seeks to distance the GPF from allegations of punitive actions against Harris and other officers, but many remain unconvinced.
In its statement, the GPF acknowledged that the court had lawfully permitted Ms. Aulder to leave the jurisdiction for medical reasons. It detailed that compliance with the court’s ruling involved discussions between Superintendent Stephen Telford, Deputy Chief Immigration Officer, and Deputy Superintendent Harris, which resulted in the necessary arrangements being made for Ms. Aulder’s departure. The GPF emphasized that Harris acted within her authority and followed proper procedures, directly contradicting earlier claims suggesting otherwise.
Most notably, the GPF denied the widespread reports that Harris had been transferred following her role in this case. The statement explicitly stated that neither Superintendent Telford nor the Executive Leadership Team issued any such transfer orders. Furthermore, the GPF dismissed allegations that officers involved in the matter were being threatened with demotion, transfer, or criminal charges, calling such reports baseless.
However, the timing of the GPF’s statement raises eyebrows. Why, many are asking, did it take days for the Force to respond to allegations that undermined its reputation and cast a shadow over its internal operations? The silence, coupled with the eventual need to publicly deny claims of retaliation against officers, has left some questioning whether there were initial intentions to act against Harris and others before the issue gained public attention.
The statement also called for restraint from the public and the media, urging caution in the dissemination of unverified information. While the GPF expressed its commitment to transparency and integrity, the delay in addressing these allegations has left lingering doubts about its willingness to practice what it preaches.
For many observers, the issue goes beyond Deputy Superintendent Harris. It speaks to a broader culture of impunity and a lack of accountability within the GPF, where internal decisions often seem arbitrary and disconnected from principles of fairness and justice. The statement, while aiming to reassure the public, leaves unanswered questions about the transparency of the Force’s decision-making processes and its treatment of officers following high-profile cases.