The New Today


Lawlessness, humiliation and exploitation in RGPF

I write to inform you that the Orderly Room in R.G.P.F is a lawless place, infested with humiliation and exploitation. The Adjudicator has absolutely no respect for the accused (defaulter) appearing before him. He speaks to you in whatever manner he wishes and when you respond, “you rude.”

Your constitutional rights are being infringed upon by the Adjudicator, especially in the absence of legal representation. It may sound incredible to you but upon invitation by the Prosecutor, the Adjudicator has access to your disclosure before you seem to have.

Both parties behind the scenes are discussing (planning) what they will do to the defaults that tantamount to inappropriate deportment.

Before the trial starts he has already prejudged the case and you as the defaults. Some persons working in the Prosecution Department know of this conduct but they dare not say anything due to fear of victimisation.

These are the people entrusted to conduct the business of the adjudication of Police Force matters and they are still being promoted to higher ranks.

Infringing on your constitutional rights and simultaneously violating the Commissioner’s documents (Circular #26 of 2018).

The Prosecution – did you produce any evidence to corroborate the charge as per charge sheet (see ground #2 for verification). This should not go unnoticed; there is cause for concern.

Here are the details of two grounds of appeals.

On Thursday the 2nd of September, 2021, I was given a charge sheet to sign and a summon to begin hearing the following day, Friday 3rd 2021.

On my arrival I was given about five (5) pieces of disclosures and simultaneously the Adjudicator was prepared to begin the trial with just his witness present, at which time I objected to the initial stage and made an application for an adjournment to seek legal representation to provide counsel with my disclosure.

He replied, “You are not entitled to no lawyer, you are not entitled to no lawyer.

Show me in the law where you are entitled to a lawyer, I can proceed with this matter right now without the presence of a lawyer. Humble yourself! Humble yourself! Your behaviour will go a long way towards the proceeding.”

In the second hearing, at the conclusion, he said, “You have nothing to appeal for. You, take your death like a sheep – ah know the Commissioner will uphold my recommendations.”

However, based on the Commissioner’s Circular #26 of 2018, under the caption “Disciplinary Policy and procedures for hearing disciplinary matters, paragraph seven states that: In the event an adjudicator shows any deficiency or makes prejudicial remarks or behaviour during the hearing of a matter, the prosecutor must advise him of his observation and of his intention to inform the D.C.O.P who will take the appropriate action.

I therefore deemed this as prejudicial remarks and prejudicing a case.

The Prosecutor said that the probability of producing evidence is not as great as a criminal case. However, based on disciplinary procedures chapter seven (7) under the caption (investigate and report #22) – “If the complainant has disclosed an allegation of crime against the officer, the allegation should be put to him, followed by the appropriate judges rules, caution and all procedures then following to be the same as in a criminal case against a member of the public.”

The constitution is quite vivid. One has to adduce all the evidence necessary to prove the defendant guilty and that the burden remains with the prosecutor from the moment the hearing begins to the end of the case.

Allegations have to be strictly proven. It is not sufficient to know what has been done and how it has been done. But the important consideration is to prove the allegation according to the law, and they have not done so. So I therefore submit a no case submission in this trial.

The Affected One