The Karimbaksh Matter Exposes a Failure of Constitutional Administration

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

The Karimbaksh Matter Exposes a Failure of Constitutional Administration

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

This op-ed  is  focused on constitutional responsibility, the prolonged administrative vacuum, and the need to separate a fair criminal or disciplinary investigation from political or institutional maneuvering

But protecting due process does not mean allowing the administration of the Guyana Police Force to drift while serious allegations involving one of its most senior officers remain under investigation.

The reported legal advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers appears to make one point clear: the Commissioner of Police does not hold independent constitutional authority under Article 212(3) to exercise disciplinary control over an officer at the rank of Deputy Commissioner. That authority, according to the opinion, is confined to officers below the rank of Inspector.

If that is the correct reading of the Constitution, then Commissioner Clifton Hicken’s initial direction that Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh proceed on leave was legally vulnerable from the start. It follows that its subsequent withdrawal was unavoidable.

Yet the more pressing issue is not merely whether the Commissioner acted beyond his personal authority. The central question is why the constitutional office with the relevant authority—the Office of the President—did not act decisively, transparently and lawfully from the beginning.

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and, under the constitutional framework, possesses key authority regarding the appointment of Deputy Commissioners of Police. Where the President holds a relevant administrative authority, he may be able, subject to the Constitution and the law, to delegate specified functions to a lawful office-holder.

That possibility was available.

The President could have considered a properly drafted, specific and legally valid delegation authorizing the Commissioner of Police, or where appropriate the Minister of Home Affairs, to take limited administrative steps necessary to preserve the integrity of an investigation.

Such a delegation would have required clarity about its scope, duration and purpose. It could not be vague, invented after the fact, or used as a device to bypass constitutional safeguards

If lawful authority existed, or if a lawful delegation had been made, the Commissioner’s communication could have been framed differently. Rather than appearing to issue an instruction solely in his own right, Commissioner Hicken could have stated clearly that he was acting pursuant to instructions or delegated authority from the Commander-in-Chief.

That distinction matters.

A letter that says, in substance, “You are directed, pursuant to authority delegated by the President, to proceed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation,” presents a fundamentally different legal question from a letter in which the Commissioner appears to rely upon authority that the Constitution may not give him.

The Government cannot now treat this as a minor procedural inconvenience. Constitutional authority is not an optional technicality, especially where it concerns the career, reputation, functions and legal rights of a Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Leave Is Not Suspension

The Attorney General’s reported opinion correctly identifies another important distinction: granting leave, imposing administrative leave, suspending an officer, conducting disciplinary proceedings, and removing an officer are not interchangeable actions.

Each carries separate consequences. Each must be supported by a clear legal source of power. And each must be exercised in a manner that respects due process.

The public deserves answers to several questions:

♦ Was Mr. Karimbaksh directed to utilize accrued annual leave, placed on administrative leave, suspended, or informally sidelined?

♦ What provision of the Constitution, statute, regulations or Police Force rules was relied upon?

♦ Did the President issue any written direction in relation to the matter?

♦ Was authority formally delegated to the Commissioner or any other official?

♦ If so, when was that delegation made, what were its terms, and was it legally valid?

♦ What role, if any, has the Police Service Commission played?

♦ Has the Police Service Commission been formally consulted on the appropriate process for an officer at the rank of Deputy Commissioner?

♦ Is Mr. Karimbaksh receiving all procedural protections to which he is entitled?

 ♦ Is the complainant receiving safety, support and assurance that her complaint will be assessed independently and without intimidation or retaliation?

These questions are not academic. They go to public confidence in the Police Force, the Government and the country’s constitutional institutions.

An Investigation Must Be Protected

No one should exploit constitutional defects to frustrate a legitimate investigation. Equally, no public officer should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful treatment merely because an allegation has become politically sensitive or publicly controversial.

The State must therefore ensure two things at once.

First, the complaint must be investigated by a body or team capable of acting independently and professionally. Given the rank of the officer involved and the internal institutional dynamics of the Guyana Police Force, the public must be assured that investigators are free of command influence, interference or fear of reprisal.

Second, any interim administrative measure must be legally sound. The purpose of such a measure should not be punishment before a finding. It should be to protect the complainant, preserve evidence, avoid potential conflicts, and maintain the credibility of the inquiry.

If the law permits the President to direct or delegate an appropriate administrative arrangement, that power should be used responsibly and transparently. If the law does not permit it, then the Government must identify the lawful procedure rather than improvise one.

The President Cannot Remain Distant

This matter has dragged on for too long because the authorities apparently failed to settle, at the outset, a basic question: who has constitutional authority over a Deputy Commissioner when serious allegations arise?

The answer could not reasonably have been left to uncertainty within the Police Force. The Commissioner of Police should not have been placed in a position where he had to act first, seek legal clarification later, and then withdraw his own directive. That sequence has weakened the appearance of orderly command and exposed the institution to unnecessary criticism.

The Office of the President had an obligation to provide lawful direction.

If President Irfaan Ali believed that Mr. Karimbaksh should be removed from operational duties while an investigation proceeded, he could have sought and acted upon clear legal advice before any instruction was issued. If he could lawfully delegate the function, he should have done so through a formal, written instrument. If a delegation to the Commissioner was appropriate, the Commissioner should have acted openly as the President’s delegate—not as though he possessed an independent constitutional disciplinary power over a Deputy Commissioner.

Likewise, if the Minister of Home Affairs could lawfully receive a limited delegation for administrative purposes, that avenue should have been carefully considered. But ministerial involvement must not be used to politicize what must remain an impartial investigative process.

Publish the Legal Basis

The Attorney General has confirmed that Commissioner Hicken sought legal advice. That is welcome, but it is not enough.

The Government should disclose the essential legal basis upon which it now intends to proceed. It need not publish sensitive investigative material or compromise the privacy of the complainant. However, it should clarify:

♦ The constitutional or statutory authority governing interim action against a Deputy Commissioner.

♦ Whether the President has issued directions or a delegation.

♦  Whether the Police Service Commission has been consulted.

♦ The status of Mr. Karimbaksh’s assignment and operational responsibilities.

♦ The safeguards protecting both the complainant and the subject of the allegations.

♦ The expected framework and timetable for the investigation.

A democracy governed by law cannot# operate through whispers, contradictory letters and retrospective explanations.

A Test for the Rule of Law

The Karimbaksh matter is not solely about one Deputy Commissioner, one Commissioner, or one complaint. It is a test of whether Guyana’s constitutional institutions can respond competently when serious allegations arise at the highest levels of the Police Force.

The Government must not permit an uncertain chain of command to undermine the investigation. Nor can it use the seriousness of the allegations to excuse actions taken without clear legal authority.

The proper course is straightforward: secure the complainant, protect the integrity of the evidence, ensure an independent and timely investigation, establish the lawful authority for any interim administrative step, involve the Police Service Commission wherever the Constitution requires it, and communicate honestly with the public.

The President must now act—not through informal signals or political convenience, but through a clear, lawful and accountable constitutional process.