Internal Rift: Top Cops at Odds Over Controversial SOCU Traffic Stop
By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA – A high-level public disagreement has erupted within the top brass of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), as Deputy Commissioner of Police and Head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Fizal Karimbaksh, openly disputes statements made by Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken. The rift centers on a controversial roadside encounter involving a SOCU rank and members of the Anti-Crime Unit.
The dispute highlights growing tensions regarding the chain of command and administrative authority within the nation’s primary law enforcement agency.
The friction follows reports that Commissioner Hicken had instructed the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to investigate Karimbaksh’s conduct during a traffic stop. However, Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh has flatly rejected these assertions.
Karimbaksh maintains that as a Deputy Commissioner, he is not subject to a standard OPR probe for non-criminal misconduct in the manner suggested. He explained that according to police regulations, any such investigation must be initiated through the Prime Minister’s Office following a formal request from the Commissioner.
The controversy stems from an incident where Anti-Crime Unit ranks stopped a SOCU officer for an alleged traffic violation. Upon learning of the stop, Karimbaksh reportedly intervened, instructing the ranks to cease their operation and leave the area.
Karimbaksh defended his actions as purely administrative, citing existing directives from the GPF Administration Department.
- The Directive: Ranks assigned to anti-crime duties are explicitly prohibited from conducting routine traffic enforcement.
- The Argument: Karimbaksh asserts he was acting within his authority to enforce departmental policy when he ordered the ranks to stand down.
Adding to the complexity of the feud is a recorded conversation from the encounter that has since gone viral on social media. Karimbaksh expressed grave concern over the leak, claiming it was a coordinated effort to embarrass him and tarnish his professional reputation.
He revealed that he and the SOCU rank are actually the complainants in this matter. Their official statements focus on:
- Insubordination: The alleged failure of the Anti-Crime ranks to follow direct orders from a superior officer at the scene.
- Breach of Privacy: The unauthorized recording and subsequent leaking of a sensitive departmental encounter.
The public nature of this dispute has sparked a wider debate regarding internal discipline and the limits of a senior officer’s power to intervene in field operations. While some argue that senior leadership must have the power to correct procedural errors on the spot, others worry that such interventions undermine the authority of junior ranks performing their duties.
As the standoff between the Commissioner and his Deputy continues, the Ministry of Home Affairs has yet to issue a formal statement on whether the Prime Minister’s Office will be engaged to resolve the administrative deadlock.
