ROWLEY’S GARY GRIFFITH COMPLEX

FACTS are stubborn things.

The truth is that Gary Griffith’s 26-month tenure as Commissioner of Police reflected a reduction in some serious crimes and increased public faith in law enforcement.

That is a triumph in a society that is now blooded by a ceaseless flow of criminal offences, along with the obvious inability of the Police Service to stem the carnage.

This has led to an understandable lack of confidence in crime-fighting personnel and policies.

To be fair, Griffith’s hands-on leadership was also demarcated by his refusal to accept critical reviews and his frequent bouts with the media and other institutions and individuals.

But that did not cloud his steadfast diligence or the public’s appreciation of his gallant efforts.

There has been a lot of water under the bridge since Griffith was prised out of the commissioner’s office just over two years ago.

Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley’s last week branded Griffith’s tenure as a “spectacular” failure and pointed to the sore matter of the issuance of firearms users’ licence.

Rowley has pitched a war against the former CoP on the basis of allegedly explosive findings from a secret enquiry by retired justice Stanley John.

Griffith is matching fire with fire and has joined the political crusade against Rowley, and is likely to contest the forthcoming general election.

He is a primary and relentless anti-government voice on national security.

The Prime Minister has clearly nourished a grudge against the man in whom he once reposed faith to nab criminals.

That resentment is so searing that Rowley is refusing to participate in anti-crime discussions with the parliamentary Opposition if Griffith is seated around the table.

This is both churlish and childish.

Resolving burning national issues calls for people with appropriate knowledge and relevant experience – not friendship.

There are innumerable international examples of opponents – sworn enemies, even – joining forces for the greater good.

Griffith’s performance as chief crime-fighter entitles him to take part in high-powered discussions and to assist in the formulation of policies and operational plans.

He has a unique history in law enforcement in a land in which such competence is rare, as Erla Harewood-Christopher continues to prove. 

It is manifestly clear that Griffith would not hold national office in any Rowley administration, but he should not be precluded from contributing to official measures aimed at curbing the sea of crime.

On the political circuit and in frequent media offerings, Griffith has offered various proposals which, he is convinced, could stem the flow of blood.

With his track record of relative success, he should be brought to the table and his measures seriously considered.

National leadership, especially during a period of exponential crime, demands maturity, broad-mindedness, and creative thinking.

There is an urgent need for innovation and new perspectives in the response to criminals who are armed, merciless, and unyielding.

Griffith’s suggestion may not be the panacea to the raging epidemic but his participation in the cause would make him part of the solution and boost the public’s sagging confidence in the law enforcement authorities.

For the benefit of a besieged nation, Rowley must sidestep his senseless Gary Griffith complex.