As security authorities investigate the shooting incident at the home of Liberia's presidential security chief a few days ago, which left a security officer dead, we see mounting calls for the chief himself and his deputy to face administrative disciplinary action and subsequently be turned over for thorough investigation.

The Press Union of Liberia, on Tuesday night, called on the president to have the men suspended and turned over to the police. The union which has a reputation of being a pressure group, is insisting that deputy Ashford Peal be arrested and investigated because of his mere presence in the perimeter of where the shooting occurred. It says the two security officials have demonstrated irresponsibility in their recent dealings and needed to be re-examined.

I  will understand why the Liberian press has made such an extraordinary intervention. At such a time when everyone, including the international community is happy about the nation's progress towards full stability and economic recovery, a reckless and irresponsible shooting incident amongst or within the presidential security unit, could turn away investors and even scare well intentioned Liberians who are preparing to return home to help with nation building.

But as I hate to find myself playing the devil's advocate, I am again right in the middle of these emerging circumstances. In part I of this write up, I clearly stated: Statements and or testimonials coming from characters who hold the key to what really happened in the Paynesville home of SSS Director, Chris Massaquoi are very disturbing and could even be used to arrest, handcuff, charge and prosecute somebody - not even mentioning dismissals. This is because my law enforcement instinct tells me there have clearly been a some reckless and unprofessional conduct that warrants administrative actions against the security officials involved.

If the law enforcement code of ethics is universally accepted, and should be practiced by law enforcement organizations world-wide, Liberia and Liberians should now come face to face with this sacred document. Excerpts from the document states:

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community, to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder, and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the law and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers. I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice.

I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of knowledge and competence.

I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession...law enforcement.

So, it was in recognition and adherence to the law enforcement Code of Ethics, that the mayor of Chicago, in 1996, suspended the police chief and his immediate deputy for being present in the vicinity of a shootout involving  four of their men. They were not even at the shopping center where the incident occurred. They were couple of yards across the street having lunch. The mayor claimed that the men involved in the shoot-out were under the direct supervision of the two officials on the very day of the incident. That and many other parallel actions and incidents I have seen and heard of, compel me to agree that this minute, deputy Peal should be placed on administrative leave. If your men are not disciplined, you take responsibility for their actions. Again, as I mentioned in Part I, Peal was irresponsible to have opened the initial fire at the residence of his boss, Col. Massaquoi. The boss should have cautioned him. We don't even know if he did. Well, Col. Massaquoi, in turn should take responsibility for the action of his deputy, Peal. So, if this is the direction the press union is heading, I'm firmly on board.

Devil's Advocate: I will however, not get on board if deputy Peal should be turned over to the police as a suspect to face investigation. Not until investigators can indicate that they have probable cause to have him arrested and subsequently charged in the case. Preliminary investigation can lead to a full blown arrest of an individual who has been helping with the investigation by giving statements and answering questions. But if police investigators are not sure or not ready to establish a case against the deputy, he should not be arrested and detained. That will be an awful mistake.

I however feel that Peal should be on administrative suspension until the investigation is done. This kind of action has been the Standard Operating Procedure in professionally modernized law enforcement organizations that operate in a fair democracy. I'm just sorry that it got to the point where the Press Union had to be calling for the actions.

TO BE CONTINUED
Click here for Part I
 

Writes,
Gabriel Gworlekaju