The recent questionable press releases emanating from the Guyana Police Force (GPF) have once again cast a pall over the already fractured relationship between the protectors and the protected. This is not a matter of simple oversight or a clumsy turn of phrase; it represents a profound crisis of credibility that strikes a corrosive blow at the very foundation of public trust. With each new, suspect version of events peddled by the GPF, the dwindling reserves of public respect erode further.
Three recent episodes stand as stark, undeniable testaments to this deeply troubling trend. These include, but are certainly not limited to, the carefully constructed narrative presented after the fatal shooting of Ronaldo Peters in Linden, the initially misleading and ultimately inaccurate pronouncements surrounding the disappearance of 11-year-old Adriana Younge in Tuschen, and the shooting of Quindon Bacchus, an incident that perhaps most chillingly exemplifies this pattern of initial deception from those entrusted with upholding the law.
In the immediate aftermath of the Quindon Bacchus shooting, the GPF swiftly released a statement painting a picture far removed from the later revealed facts. According to this initial account, a 22-year-old construction worker, cast in the role of informant, led officers to Quindon Bacchus, who was alleged to have an illegal firearm he intended to sell to an undercover operative. This narrative suggested a planned transaction, an attempt by Bacchus to engage in criminal activity that justified police intervention.
The police version of events then escalated, claiming that during the purported handover, an “alarm was raised” – a vague and convenient trigger – prompting Bacchus to flee southward, discharging a firearm in the direction of the pursuing officer. The officer, in this telling, had no choice but to return fire. The initial report further elaborated, stating that Bacchus sought refuge in a nearby yard, where the relentless police pursuit continued. Here, the narrative claimed Bacchus fired yet more shots, forcing the officer to seek cover and respond with fatal force, ultimately wounding Bacchus. This initial statement emphatically asserted that Bacchus had repeatedly fired upon the officers after supposedly realizing their true identities as law enforcement.
However, the subsequent investigation peeled back the layers of this convenient narrative to reveal a crucial, damning fact: the firearm in Quindon Bacchus’ possession was not functional. This single finding obliterates the very foundation of the initial police report, directly contradicting the claim that Bacchus fired rounds at the officers. The implications are staggering, raising profound and unsettling questions about the deliberate inflation, if not outright fabrication, of the initial official statement. This is not a mere discrepancy; it is a chasm of untruthfulness that undermines the very notion of the police as a reliable source of information.
The tragic death of Ronaldo Peters in Linden on Monday provides an even more grievous example, a direct consequence of an encounter with law enforcement. According to the official GPF press release issued with customary speed on Tuesday, a Sergeant and another officer from Wismar Police Station, acting on unspecified “intelligence,” located Peters at Shabba Bar. The police account insists that both officers were conspicuously “fully dressed in uniform,” the Sergeant armed with a 9mm pistol, and his colleague with a .38 revolver. Upon sighting these uniformed officers, Peters allegedly made a desperate attempt to flee, trying to scale a fence. The Sergeant then claims he intercepted Peters, and it was “in the process of subduing him” – an alarmingly vague phrase – that his service pistol discharged, sending a fatal bullet into Peters’ right lower abdomen. Despite being rushed to Mackenzie Public Hospital, Peters tragically succumbed to his injury.
This official narrative, however, was almost instantly met with vehement and credible challenges from family members and eyewitnesses who were present on the scene. Crucially, readily available CCTV footage, a silent but irrefutable witness, contradicts the police’s unwavering assertion that the officers were in uniform – a fundamental detail that strikes at the very core of the official story’s credibility. If, as the footage suggests, the officers were not in uniform, the entire context of the encounter shifts dramatically, casting a pall of suspicion over the subsequent chain of events. It raises deeply unsettling questions about identification, the justification for the use of force, and the veracity of the ensuing explanation for the fatal shooting.
Equally troubling is the disturbing case of 11-year-old Adriana Younge, whose young life was tragically cut short when she was found dead in the Double Day Tuschen hotel pool. The initial statement issued by the GPF regarding her disappearance was riddled with significant and ultimately damaging inaccuracies. In their initial pronouncement, the police claimed that the young girl was traced to a “Red and Black Raum” heading in the direction of Vreed-en-Hoop. This specific detail painted a vivid picture of a possible abduction or a runaway scenario involving a particular vehicle. However, this narrative was later exposed as unequivocally false, with the police themselves issuing a subsequent statement acknowledging the presence of “inaccuracies” in their original report and confirming the crucial fact that the child had never, at any point, left the confines of the hotel premises. The GPF’s belated admission that “certain details contained in the initial statement circulated were inaccurate” and their subsequent pledge to review “internal communication processes” are perhaps welcome acknowledgements of their profound error, but they do little to truly repair the immense damage inflicted by their initial misinformation. In the frantic and emotionally charged search for a missing child, disseminating demonstrably false information about her whereabouts and mode of transport is not a mere administrative error; it has the potential to fatally misdirect crucial investigative resources, waste invaluable time in the critical early hours of a search, and inflict immeasurable additional distress upon the already traumatized family and the wider public.
Questions were also asked about the veracity of a police press release on January 15, 2025 pertaining to an incident during which cops shot two men dead – including a Good Samaritan. To date there has been no further clarity as neither the force nor the Police Complaints Authority has issued a verdict on the killings.
When these disturbing events are considered together, they coalesce into a deeply troubling portrait of a police force whose immediate instinct in sensitive, high-stakes situations appears to be the meticulous control of the narrative, rather than an unvarnished and truthful presentation of the facts, even when those facts are complex, inconvenient, or unflattering.
What is desperately needed now transcends mere acknowledgements of “inaccuracies.” There must be a fundamental and systemic review of the entire process by which information is gathered, rigorously verified, and subsequently disseminated within the ranks of the GPF.
