The Guyana Police Force (GPF) is currently conducting an audit relative to ranks conducting duties while not being clad in the prescribed uniform.
According to Deputy Commissioner Administration, Paul Williams, several persons have complained of safety issues when they are around those individuals. Williams made the announcement during a Police presentation on Monday.
According to him, “We are now carrying out an audit as it relates to the security posture in terms of the uniform, the firearm and everything…so we will continue to make checks now that we have identified some other areas, and to ensure that they have themselves within the right posture and (are) fully dressed in their uniform and properly identified”.
He also said the GPF is working to reduce the display of heavy firearm by those guards who stand at the entrances to businesses.
Crime Chief Lyndon Alves explained that businesses are required to present a template of the guards’ uniforms to the police before they can even receive a permit for the heavily armed persons to operate at the various facilities.
“Prior to a company being granted a licence to operate, the very security company is required to present to the Police a template of the uniform that is to be worn by those supernumerary constables, so those companies that have the guards armed and are not in the appropriate uniform, the Police will have to take the appropriate action,” he explained.
This statement managed to raise eyebrows, as this would imply illegal guards operate across the country.
Many times armed security guards who were not uniformed found themselves in hot water.
Back in August two Ukrainian guards who were captured on video beating two Guyanese miners near the Quartzstone River in Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni) were arrested.
The Police have said investigations revealed that the Ukrainians are employed by West Bank Demerara Gold Inc, which is licensed to operate in Guyana; and as Supernumerary Constables, they are authorised to carry firearms. However, they breached the conditions of that permit, in that at time of the incident, they were not attired in the uniform prescribed by their employer and approved by the Force’s Administration. The two were later charged for the offence.
