Brutus challenges Govt’s ‘Diversity Policy’ in High Court, alleges racial discrimination in Force

In a legal battle that highlights deep-rooted issues of racial inequality within the Guyana Police Force, embattled Assistant Commissioner Calvin Brutus has once again turned to the High Court, seeking several declarations and orders regarding the government’s controversial “Diversity Policy.” Brutus contends that the policy, which aims to balance the ethnic composition of the police force, is discriminatory and contravenes key sections of Guyana’s Constitution and the Prevention of Discrimination Act.

The core of Brutus’ legal challenge centers around the claim that the government’s approach to ethnic representation within the police force, particularly in relation to recruitment, promotions, and training, disproportionately favours Indo-Guyanese officers, sidelining qualified Afro-Guyanese officers in the process.

According to court documents seen by HGPTV Nightly News, the issue dates back to the final quarter of 2020, when a meeting involving high-level officials—including President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, Ministers of Government, and the Commissioner of Police—resulted in a directive from the Vice President. This directive mandated that the structure of the Guyana Police Force should mirror the ethnic composition of the general population, with an emphasis on recruiting, promoting, and training officers in line with these ethnic quotas.

Brutus argues that the policy, dubbed the “Government Diversity Policy,” has disproportionately benefited officers of East Indian descent, specifically when it comes to promotions to top-ranking positions. He contends that Afro- Guyanese officers, despite being more qualified, were passed over in favour of Indo-Guyanese officers to meet a diversity quota—an assertion that Brutus has repeatedly raised during statutory meetings with the Commissioner of Police and Minister of Home Affairs, Robeson Benn.

In court documents, Brutus describes his frustration at the government’s apparent preference for Indo-Guyanese officers, claiming that hundreds of Afro-Guyanese candidates who were better suited for specific roles were sidelined in favour of meeting an ethnic diversity target. This, Brutus argues, runs contrary to the principle of meritocracy and undermines the integrity of the police force.

The situation took a dramatic turn on July 4, 2024, when Brutus was allegedly informed by the Acting Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken that he was being transferred to head the Special Branch—a move that Brutus claims was directly ordered by Vice President Jagdeo.

The reason for the transfer, according to Brutus, was to create space for Assistant Commissioner Ravindradat Budhram to gain experience in Administration. Brutus maintains that this decision was based purely on race, as Budhram was favoured for the position due to his Indo-Guyanese background.

Attorneys-at-law Darren Wade, Eusi Anderson, Remea Marcus, and Cassidy Nurse are representing Brutus in his legal action against the government.

The case raises troubling questions about the role of race in government policies, particularly in sectors such as law enforcement where impartiality is crucial. It also touches on wider national concerns about the historical practice of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) promoting ethnic balance within the public sector but failing to address similar imbalances in the private sector, where African-Guyanese and other non-Indians continue to be disproportionately marginalised.

This legal battle is not just about the future of one police officer, but about the broader issue of racial equity in Guyana’s institutions.

Brutus’ claims of discrimination are not isolated incidents but are reflective of broader societal issues that have plagued the country for decades. His challenge to the government’s policies may very well be the catalyst for a wider conversation about how race continues to shape the country’s institutions, including the police force, the public sector, and the private sector.

While the case is still developing, it serves as a stark reminder of the need for genuine and meaningful progress toward racial equity in all sectors of Guyanese society—public and private. The government’s response to these challenges will reveal whether it is truly committed to building a fair and just society for all Guyanese, or if its policies are simply designed to serve the interests of the politically powerful few.