SOCU head should be sent on administrative leave

Top Cop appoints team to probe rape allegation against SOCU head - Kiskadee Watch # Top Cop appoints team to probe rape allegation against SOCU head By Staff Editor Sat, October 3 2026, 2:14 AM GMT-4 Fazil Karimbaksh -Home Affairs Minister, police finally break silence More than 10 days after she was made aware of a rape complaint against SOCU Head Fazil Karimbaksh, Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond finally broke her silence on the matter yesterday and this was later followed by a statement from the police which did not name the accused. ... Asked by interviewer Fareeza Haniff about the Karimbaksh matter, Walrond said “I can confirm that she (the complainant) has given a statement. I am informed from the Commissioner (of Police) that a team has been set up to deal with this investigation. The investigation would entail getting statements from the other persons in whom they think would be appropriate to get statements and statements from the accused who is the Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh and to hold a formal confrontation”. Asked by the interviewer if this is a process that happens for any rape allegation made against anyone, Walrond said “The fact is that Mr Karimbaksh is at the helm of the police force, he is a Deputy Commissioner and so there is a particular procedure that has to be followed and so … the confrontation that would be held from the team that would be assigned after that confrontation then the matter will be adjudicated whether its disciplinary action or criminal action that would be for the criminal investigation department to determine and this team who is doing the investigation”. The subsequent police statement likewise did not disclose whether Karimbaksh had been placed on leave or suspended, identify the members of the investigative team, or give a timetable for its work. “Following receipt of the report, Commissioner of Police, Dr. Clifton Hicken, established a team to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations,” the force stated. It assured the public that the allegations were being treated seriously and that the investigation would be conducted professionally, impartially and in accordance with established procedures. It also pledged due process for all parties and said further information would be provided as necessary. ... due process be bypassed.” She expressed confidence in the investigative team and said it should be allowed to work independently and thoroughly, without public interference or prejudgment. “Let the evidence guide the process. Let the law take its course,” she added. Walrond also told the Starting Point podcast that “It is my view and I hold this strong view that he (Karimbaksh) should be sent on administrative leave pending the investigation”. She acknowledged that this should be in the purview of the Police Service Commission but that it was still to be constituted. She said she would assume that the matter would now have to be discussed between her and the Police Commissioner. ... Walrond’s reference to a proposed confrontation must be considered alongside the protections in Section 42 of the Sexual Offences Act, Chapter 8:03. Section 42(1) expressly provides that “at no point during the ... shall the complainant be required to recount the complaint or any part of it, in the presence of the accused unless the complainant wants to do so”. ... the presence of ... perpetrator, except ... identification procedure conducted ... link, a ... -way mirror ... or another arrangement sensitive to the complainant’s ... current matter, opposition figures have called for an independent investigation and Karimbaksh’s removal from operational duties while it proceeds. Walrond’s stated preference for administrative leave addresses part of those concerns, but the statements released so far do not announce that step or explain the safeguards governing the proposed confrontation.

More than 10 days after she was made aware of a rape complaint against SOCU Head Fazil Karimbaksh, Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond finally broke her silence on the matter yesterday and this was later followed by a statement from the police which did not name the accused. ... Asked by interviewer Fareeza Haniff about the Karimbaksh matter, Walrond said “I can confirm that she (the complainant) has given a statement. I am informed from the Commissioner (of Police) that a team has been set up to deal with this investigation. The investigation would entail getting statements from the other persons in whom they think would be appropriate to get statements and statements from the accused who is the Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh and to hold a formal confrontation”. Asked by the interviewer if this is a process that happens for any rape allegation made against anyone, Walrond said “The fact is that Mr Karimbaksh is at the helm of the police force, he is a Deputy Commissioner and so there is a particular procedure that has to be followed and so … the confrontation that would be held from the team that would be assigned after that confrontation then the matter will be adjudicated whether its disciplinary action or criminal action that would be for the criminal investigation department to determine and this team who is doing the investigation”. ... Walrond also told the Starting Point podcast that “It is my view and I hold this strong view that he (Karimbaksh) should be sent on administrative leave pending the investigation”. She acknowledged that this should be in the purview of the Police Service Commission but that it was still to be constituted. She said she would assume that the matter would now have to be discussed between her and the Police Commissioner. ... In the current matter, opposition figures have called for an independent investigation and Karimbaksh’s removal from operational duties while it proceeds. Walrond’s stated preference for administrative leave addresses part of those concerns, but the statements released so far do not announce that step or explain the safeguards governing the proposed confrontation.

By Stabroek News April 15, 2012 The investigating team comprising ranks from the Guyana Police Force and the Jamaican Constabulary Force (JCF) found that Police Commissioner Henry Greene was “highly unprofessional” in his involvement with the woman who has accused him of rape, saying that his behaviour invoked constitutional grounds for removal from office. “The commissioner has strongly refuted the allegation of rape, however, his action leaves much to be desired. The complainant was the subject of a criminal investigation which was known to him, as by his own admission formed the basis of her complaint to him in his capacity of Commissioner of Police. It is therefore highly unprofessional of him to have used his public office to engage the complainant in furtherance of sexual favours and as such invokes article 225 (2) of the Constitution,” the report, seen by Stabroek News, stated. ... The investigation also found that on November 15, the Commissioner contacted the Commanding Officer of ‘C’ Division and enquired about the status of an investigation concerning the complainant and instructed that the investigators in the matter report to his office later that day. The investigators did visit his office as instructed and Greene perused the file and instructed them to expedite its submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). ... The findings of the joint team were not among the evidence submitted by DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack to acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, who was hearing applications by Greene’s lawyers to quash the DPP’s advice to charge him with rape and to bar the police from acting on it. Chang eventually ruled in favour of Greene, finding that the DPP’s recommendation was irrational and was unlikely to secure a conviction ... The investigation was conducted by a joint team which included four members of the police force, five JCF ranks and an expert from the Government of Jamaica Forensic Laboratory. In addition to its conclusion’s about Greene’s conduct, it found that the action of the complainant was “questionable,” when the circumstances leading up to, during and after the allegation were examined. According to the 34-point interim report, which was signed by Crime Chief Seelall Persaud and Ealan Powell, the Assistant Commissioner of the JCF, from the investigations conducted there was no doubt that sexual intercourse had taken place but there was dispute as to whether it was consensual or forced. It did, however, note that the complainant’s indication of rape differed from the suggestion of two persons who were at the city hotel where the alleged rape occurred and that there were too many inconsistencies in her story to definitively conclude that she had been raped. As part of the investigation, statements from 35 persons were recorded; the scene of the alleged rape was processed; an audio tape of a television interview given by the complainant reviewed; the commissioner’s land cruiser photographed; the hotel photographed and sketched; a business card allegedly given to the complainant by the Commissioner obtained and photographed; the area where the food was bought by the complainant at the request of the Commissioner photographed; and all other potential exhibits obtained, including the pants the complainant was wearing at the time of the alleged incident and the medical certificate from the medical examination conducted on the complainant. ... made by Greene and the complainant ... than half of ... were taken from the statements the complainant gave ... The report stated ... November 15 ... 22, ... year, at his office ... The Commissioner, it ... except to buy ... other monies on November 22 ... November 11 ... Commissioner’s office, the report said. ... relied on other statements submitted to ... not present a

Section 42 (1) of the SOA states that if a person (“the complainant”) reports to the police that another person (“the accused”) has committed any of the offences under the SOA against them, the police should not make the complainant repeat the details of the report in the presence of the accused during any part of the investigation (or the trial I would add). The only exception is where the complainant wants to do so. Moreover, the complainant should not be coerced or otherwise convinced to agree to a confrontation. Further, section 41 (2) of the SOA states that a complainant must not be required to view or be in the presence of the accused and or accomplices unless for identification purposes, and even then, identification can only be by audio-video link, two-way mirror, or another appropriate manner which considers the complainant’s well-being. ... Usually, when a person is accused of committing an offence against another, police officers have the option of holding a “confrontation”. During a confrontation, both the complainant and the accused stand, in the presence of each other, before police investigators and tell their versions of the facts. ... Importantly, the accused is never required to say anything. He or she has a right to remain silent, and a right to have his/her attorney-at-law present during the confrontation, and any other engagement he or she has with the police for that matter. This can be a useful tool for crime solving. ... The abolition of confrontations in cases of sexual offences therefore serves to protect the integrity of the criminal investigation, and the well-being of the complainant by making the complainant as comfortable as possible (all things considered). ... These provisions include sections 55, 56, 57, and 58 of the SOA. Sections 55 and 56 allow the complainant to, during a trial, give evidence from the cover of a screen (section 55), or audio-visual link (section 56). This way, the accused cannot look at or otherwise see the complainant (and vice versa) when he or she is giving testimony. ... Section 41 of the Act does not create a penalty for cases in which police officers breach this section and put the complainant in the presence of the accused. Nevertheless, if the police fail to comply with section 41, there can be various repercussions. ... The Guyana Police Force (GPF) can also be sued for breach of statutory duty or negligence if they fail to comply with section 41, and that failure causes emotional or other harm to the complainant.