Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Concerns are escalating within the police service as Assistant Commissioner Calvin Brutus becomes the focus of an alleged politically charged investigation. Anonymous sources warn that the unfolding situation highlights how the government handles officials implicated in sensitive activities. “Those in the force who engage in corruption, money laundering, or extrajudicial killings at the government’s behest should take heed. This is what happens when the government no longer needs you,” one source noted grimly.
Brutus and his pregnant wife were recently denied permission by the High Court to travel to the United States for medical reasons. Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna Lall argued against the request, stating that 240 charges for financial crimes are pending against Brutus. The court emphasized both the seriousness of these allegations and the procedural failure of Brutus to seek approval from the Permanent Secretary before requesting permission to travel.
Brutus is represented by Attorney Earl Daniels. His defense team argues that the government’s pursuit of the case is politically motivated, calling the investigation “tainted.”
Some insiders within the force are now asking whether Brutus will cooperate with investigators and provide evidence against government officials implicated in illegal activities. They express growing concern about Brutus’s safety as the legal battle unfolds. “The way he is being treated raises serious questions. If they are done with him, is he safe? Will he expose others to save himself?”
The case has also highlighted an unsettling trend within the force, with suggestions that those serving political interests are at risk of being abandoned when no longer useful.
Two days before the travel denial, Brutus filed a lawsuit against the Government, Attorney General, Acting Police Commissioner, and the Police Service Commission, challenging the investigation into his finances. His legal team is seeking to halt what they describe as an unjust inquiry. Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, however, has publicly denied any attempt to cover up police misconduct, stating the government is committed to prosecuting corruption within the police force and will vigorously oppose Brutus’s court action.
The Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU) has recommended multiple charges be filed against Brutus, stemming from an investigation that began with allegations of financial misconduct in the Police Force’s Credit Union. The probe widened following evidence provided by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), revealing millions of dollars in Brutus’s personal and family accounts. Brutus maintains the funds represent years of savings and family gifts, disputing the state’s characterization of the assets.
The way Brutus’s case is unfolding sends a warning to other police officers involved in similar activities. His administrative leave, which began in July to allow investigations, has created ripples within the force. Senior officers are left wondering if they will meet a similar fate if their ties to the government become inconvenient.
Some insiders fear that Brutus may become a scapegoat, while others speculate he might strike a deal with investigators to reveal names and details about compromised officials. His situation paints a stark picture of the risks faced by public officials involved in questionable practices, particularly when political tides shift.
Brutus’s situation highlights the fragility of loyalty within Guyana’s political and law enforcement circles. As the investigation deepens, his case could become a test of whether law enforcement is held to the same standard as other institutions—or whether political interests will dictate the outcome. The broader implications for public trust and governance in Guyana remain uncertain, but Brutus’s fate will undoubtedly influence how officers in the police service navigate their roles in the future.
