Agony to recoup bail money lodged at City Constabulary

Dear Editor,
In a recent letter to the Editor, I outlined the nightmare I encountered while attempting to recoup some bail money lodged at the City Constabulary.
As I proceeded at the final stage, to collect the money, I discovered to my chagrin that the bottleneck appeared to be longer than the distance from City Hall to Imbotero Police Station — on the northern tip of Guyana, on the Guyana/Venezuela border.
The process can be likened to an admixture of English and Spanish, which no reasonable person can comprehend.
I had thought that it would have been an easy task to uplift the money. Here is the process I encountered. The prosecutor is required to endorse the bail receipt, stating that the case has been completed and that the money can be returned to the bailor. Thereafter, someone from the court office has to check several piles of disposed case jackets to find the one under review. The jacket and the endorsed bail receipt are then taken to the administrative officer for his approval. He is not always available, as he sometimes performs duties at nights, and is not on duty the following day.
After approval has been given, there is a mandatory waiting period of 14 working days before the money can be uplifted from the treasury.
I had felt that it would have been an easy task to collect the money after the long and agonising 14 days’ waiting period had expired. After the expiration of the waiting period, I returned to the City Constabulary, taking with me the bail receipt and the authorisation, and was politely directed to the treasury to collect the money. I gave a member of the treasury the authorisation, my identification card and that of the bailor, as instructed by the City Constabulary. He examined them closely, then went into the office and returned about five minutes later. He told me that he wanted to see the identification cards of the two persons who had signed the authorisation. I was shocked. I explained to him that I did not have their identification cards. The witnesses were in the interior and it would take me at least seven days to get their identification cards.
He uttered a terse statement, “Sir, you have to get the identification cards of the witnesses, or you cannot get the money.” I left the office.
While in the compound, I saw a senior member of the Constabulary. He asked me if I had received the money. I explained to him what had transpired at the treasury, and in an effort to assist me, he went into the treasury. He came out a few minutes later and told me that I have to get the identification cards of the two witnesses in order to uplift the money; that is the procedure.
I returned 10 days later armed with identification cards of four persons spanning across four of the ten administrative regions of Guyana. I tendered my bail receipt and my identification card to a member of the treasury. He looked at them and went into the office. He returned a few moments later with a cheque for ,000.00 written in favour of the bailor, and asked me to sign for it, which I did. No identification card of the bailor, no identification card of the witnesses, no authorisation was required.
Call it double-standard, call it inconsistency; but the present process to recover bail will not improve the image of City Hall or promote public confidence in the operation of the Georgetown Mayor and City Council.
The process I encountered to recoup bail money has the potential to promote unethical and corrupt behaviours. The words of world-renowned Guyanese musician and now Sunday columnist, Dave Martins, keep wringing in ears: “This is Guyana”. It might be interested to find out how much unclaimed bail money is lodged at City Hall because of the system in place.
There is the need for a more transparent and speedy process to be designed and implemented to refund bail at City Hall. This can be done if those in authority connect the dots and do some more thinking outside of the proverbial box.

Yours faithfully,
Clinton Conway
Assistant
Commissioner of
Police (Retired)