On Monday, Prisons Director Gladwin Samuels announced that a decision has been taken to give an “incentive” to prison officers who provide the authorities with information that can lead to the “detection and prosecution” of persons engaged in the corrupt practices within the country’s prisons system.
Samuels said those officers who come forward would be given between $15,000 and $25,000 for the information they provide which will serve as a token of encouragement to aid in Guyana’s fight against corruption at all levels.
The Prisons Director’s statement to the media obviously received the full endorsement and policy buy-in from the Public Security Ministry, which took up the task of transmitting the same directly. And no one would be wrong to assume that Cabinet, the National Security Oversight Council and the presidential advisors on security have also expressed support for the move being initiated by the Prisons Director’s Office.
Samuels, however, failed to say how the decision was arrived at and what research, if any, existed to show that officers within the system would be willing to come forward and provide evidence against their colleagues if a measly $15,000 to $25,000 was involved. He also did not say explicitly how the process would work and what arrangements are likely to be put in place to protect the identity of the whistleblower who in this case would be providing the authorities with valued intelligence on the well-established criminal network and enterprise within the prisons system.
Interestingly, the Director also stopped short of saying just exactly where this ‘small piece’ would be extracted from – under which budgeting agency or line item, special fund or agency – in his statement. Will it be funds provided by donor agencies to tackle corruption or the hard-earned dollars taken by the Government from the citizenry of the country in the form of taxes?
Public officials must understand that when they present policies to the populace they must be ready to also provide detailed explanations behind the rationales and decisions that they would like to implement or undertake. Were prison officers themselves briefed about the move or consulted before the decision was taken to make the public announcement? And what are the consequences of the revelations once it hits the media.
While Samuels’ intention is understood and appears honourable, it can also be indicative or interpreted as desperate to those who believe that there are at least three other ways of addressing the problems that arise from the criminal activities that are taking place in and around the prison system.
For instance, one would have thought that same money that would be put aside for the purpose of providing incentives to those who speak out against corruption could flow towards increasing the pay packages and working conditions of prison officers.
Monies could even be spent equipping the penitentiaries with more Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) and other recording devices while boosting the officers’ ability to deliver higher levels of surveillance to the entry and exit points of the prisons.
Of pivotal importance too is the generally understood principle that in order to fight corruption, one has to tackle the root causes and underlying factors. In this case, the prison service must improve its recruitment techniques and must do a detailed vetting of the personnel it wants to hire before confirmation and employment. It must also monitor closely the acquisition of wealth by all those who are serving within its system. Maybe, officers from a certain level should be asked to make declarations to the Integrity Commission or some other body.
Smuggling contraband into the prisons, the illegal acquisition of weapons and drugs, and the challenge posed by rouge prison officers cannot be wished away with the implementation of such a puerile policy within the first term of the coalition Government. It will take a sustained, holistic and multi-stakeholder cooperation to strengthen the penal system to reduce the risks of corruption via the implementation of more specialised programmes that are geared towards professionalising the prison service and transforming it into a truly correctional and rehabilitative organism within our society. This means spending money to achieve ‘value’ in the short and long term.
Unfortunately, the policy itself appears to be referendum on the integrity of serving prison officers who it can be interpreted are unwilling to speak out against corruption, and are more likely to support criminal activities regardless of the consequences than expose them. Such a policy can only result in tension, division and a less conducive working environment within the prison service if it is not implemented cautiously.
The general policy as adumbrated by the Prisons Director needs to be strengthened if it is to result in even the most modest level of success. If the Public Security Ministry feels compelled to process, then the same policy approach must be instituted within the Guyana Police Force and the Guyana Revenue Authority. After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and employees at those agencies may need the “incentive” and encouragement even more than those within the prison service.
