No need for Williams to resign, says INDECOM

Published: Friday | March 9, 2012 Comments 0
Terrence Williams
Terrence Williams

The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) has scoffed at calls by police groups for the immediate resignation of its head, Terrence Williams.

Williams has been under pressure since Tuesday when he shared a platform with human-rights group Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) and Public Defender Earl Witter, where they expressed concern about the number of fatal shootings by the police in recent days.

The Police Federation led the charge against Williams, arguing that he participated in "a press conference where views were expressed which were biased against members of the force".

"The posture adopted by the INDECOM head has eroded the crime-fighting efforts of decent police officers who continue to battle with notorious criminal elements," said Franz Morrison, chairman of the Police Federation.

"The federation no longer has any confidence in Commissioner Williams' ability to impartially investigate any incident involving police officers, as there will be a lack of balance and/or objectiveness in arriving at the truth," added Morrison.

He was supported by the Police Officers' Association which also claimed Williams had tarnished the impartiality of the entity established to probe allegations against members of the security forces.

Nothing wrong

But yesterday, INDECOM argued that Williams had done nothing wrong and had no reason to resign.

"We make no apologies for sharing the concerns of organisations such as Jamaicans for Justice or the Office of the Public Defender and airing our concerns in that regard," said INDECOM.

"Our concerns are in no way an attack upon the security forces and should not be construed as such, added INDECOM.

According to agency: "We will continue to conduct all our investigations in a professional and impartial manner. Any suggestion that we have been, or will be, conducting our investigations in any way contrary to the law and/or in contradiction to the INDECOM Act are unfortunate and, by extension, rejected."

 

Share |

The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. Please keep comments short and precise. A maximum of 8 sentences should be the target. Longer responses/comments should be sent to "Letters of the Editor" using the feedback form provided.
blog comments powered by Disqus