By Marvin Cato | HGP Nightly News |
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — In a major internal confrontation within the high command of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), Deputy Commissioner of Police and Head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) Fazil Karimbaksh has formally mounted a fierce legal challenge against Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken, threatening immediate High Court litigation over directives instructing him to proceed on compulsory pre-retirement leave.
The administrative showdown follows mounting public protests and formal investigations into grave allegations of rape and threatening behaviour leveled against Karimbaksh by a female subordinate police inspector.
Through his legal counsel, the embattled SOCU chief served formal notice rejecting the statutory validity of Hicken’s directive, asserting that the Top Cop lacks constitutional authority to compel his administrative absence in the absence of a duly constituted Police Service Commission (PSC).
The Compulsory Leave Mandate: Disputed Days and Timelines
The escalating dispute centers on a formal correspondence issued by Commissioner Hicken dated October 7, 2026, instructing Karimbaksh to proceed on accumulated annualized vacation leave ahead of his scheduled statutory retirement in April 2027:
- The Disputed Figures: Commissioner Hicken calculated that Karimbaksh is eligible for 174 days of accumulated annualized leave and ordered that the mandatory absence commence on November 8, 2026.
- Karimbaksh’s Counter-Audit: The Deputy Commissioner’s attorney explicitly rejected the administration’s calculations, contending that official records demonstrate an actual entitlement of only 118 days—a significant 56-day discrepancy.
- Date Expressly Contested: The attorney affirmed that inserting the November 8 commencement date neither establishes an agreement nor grants lawful authority to enforce his removal, declaring both the calculation and commencement date expressly disputed.
Constitutional Pushback: The Article 212 Safeguard
At the core of Karimbaksh’s challenge is a constitutional question regarding command authority versus disciplinary committal:
- Command vs. Disciplinary Control: While acknowledging that Section 6 of the Police Act, Cap. 16:01, grants general superintendence and operational command of the force to the Commissioner of Police, Karimbaksh’s legal team emphasized that statutory powers remain subordinate to the supreme law of Guyana.
- The PSC Exclusivity: The attorney cited Articles 211 and 212 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, emphasizing that Article 212(1) vests exclusive disciplinary control over officers of Karimbaksh’s senior rank in the Police Service Commission.
- No Automatic Transfer of Power: While Article 212(2) permits delegation via written directions, the legal notice pointedly noted that the PSC is presently expired and unconstituted. Crucially, the attorney warned that “any such vacancy does not, of itself, transfer its powers to you or another authority.”
High Court Action and Injunctions Loom
Commissioner Hicken has been placed on formal notice that any attempt to forcibly lock Karimbaksh out of his office or compel his absence without constitutional grounding will trigger an immediate legal filing:
- Urgent Interim Injunctions: Karimbaksh’s legal team confirmed that filings will seek emergency High Court injunctive relief against the administration alongside claims for damages and substantial legal costs.
- Preserving Rights and Active Command: The notice stressed that Karimbaksh’s continued day-to-day discharge of duties as head of SOCU shall not be construed as an acceptance of the directive or a waiver of his legal remedies.
The institutional standoff intensifies public debate surrounding senior accountability in the Guyana Police Force, coming on the heels of picketing exercises outside SOCU headquarters demanding transparent, independent investigations into the criminal allegations against Karimbaksh.
