By Mark DaCosta- A former officer of the Guyana Police Force, now a political analyst, has called for a reduction in the 72-hour period police are allowed to hold a suspect before a court appearance, describing the limit as dangerously excessive and warning that it creates opportunities for arbitrary abuse.
Speaking to this publication, the former officer argued that the period, intended to safeguard the administration of justice, can instead become a tool for overreach, particularly amid public concerns about the independence of what critics describe as a politicised police force. He urged Parliament to shorten the detention period and strengthen safeguards against unlawful or unnecessary detention.
Although few citizens may be familiar with the constitutional provision governing detention before a court appearance, he said it is a fundamental protection that deserves greater public attention.
Under Article 139 of the Constitution, a person arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence must be brought before a court without unreasonable delay and, in any event, within 72 hours of arrest, unless released. Police powers of arrest without a warrant, as provided for under the Police Act, operate within that constitutional framework.
The former officer said the problem lies partly in how the 72-hour limit is interpreted and applied by some members of the force.
“The law was meant to set a ceiling, yet in too many stations it is treated as an entitlement,” he said. “If the law permits three days, some officers will take three days, whether or not the case demands it.”
He argued that investigations should be driven by evidence gathered before an arrest, rather than using detention as an opportunity to build a case against a suspect.
In his view, the sequence is too often reversed, with individuals detained on suspicion before investigators use the time in custody to pursue evidence. He warned that such an approach risks turning detention into a means of pressuring suspects rather than a necessary step in a lawful investigation.
“Detention becomes a tool of pressure rather than a step of last resort,” he said. “That is not investigation. It is coercion with a time limit.”
The former officer said concerns about the length of detention are compounded by public perceptions that the police may be vulnerable to political influence. He maintained that even the perception of political interference can undermine confidence in law enforcement and make extensive detention powers more difficult for citizens to trust.
“When people already suspect that enforcement can bend towards politics, a long, unsupervised detention power becomes even harder to trust,” he said. “Public confidence is the currency of policing, and it is being spent.”
International standards and detention limits
The former officer also questioned whether Guyana’s 72-hour limit compares favourably with detention rules in other jurisdictions. Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica are commonly cited as having shorter periods for bringing detained suspects before judicial authorities, while England and Wales generally allow detention for up to 24 hours before charge, with extensions subject to additional authorisation and longer periods permitted in serious cases. In Canada, a person arrested without a warrant is generally required to be brought before a justice within 24 hours where one is available, or as soon as possible otherwise.
These comparisons depend on the circumstances of arrest and the legal procedures in each jurisdiction, but the former officer argued that they demonstrate the need to examine whether Guyana’s current limit is appropriate.
International human rights standards also place importance on prompt judicial oversight. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Guyana is a party, requires that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
The former officer said the principle behind these protections is especially important where detainees have limited access to legal assistance or independent oversight.
He stressed that the conditions in which people are held must also be considered when assessing the impact of a lengthy detention period.
“Imagine being taken from your family, your job and your lawyer, and placed in a cell with no one outside knowing how you are,” he said. “For an innocent person, those seventy-two hours are a punishment, delivered before any charge has been laid.”
He warned that isolation, fatigue and fear can leave detainees vulnerable to unlawful questioning and pressure to make confessions. Such risks, he argued, make effective supervision and timely access to legal representation essential.
Access to justice and proposed reforms
The former officer also questioned whether existing legal remedies are accessible enough to protect people who believe they have been unlawfully detained.
Habeas corpus provides a legal mechanism through which a person can challenge the lawfulness of detention. Unlawful imprisonment may also give rise to claims for damages, depending on the circumstances. However, the former officer said the practical barriers to obtaining urgent legal assistance can prevent vulnerable detainees from exercising their rights within the time available.
“The ordinary labourer, the vendor, the young man from the village does not have those things within three days,” he said. “A right that only the well-connected can use is a privilege.”
He proposed a package of reforms aimed at reducing unnecessary detention and improving accountability. These include lowering the standard maximum period from 72 hours to either 24 or 48 hours, requiring written magistrate authorisation for any extension beyond an initial 24 hours, and allowing extensions only where police can demonstrate compelling grounds.
He also called for strict enforcement of detainees’ access to legal counsel and for officers to provide a recorded statement of the reasons for each arrest.
While bail-related reforms have been discussed in recent years, he maintained that such measures cannot replace a clear and shorter limit on detention before judicial oversight.
Supporters of the existing framework may argue that complex investigations, limited police resources and difficulties accessing remote communities justify allowing investigators more time. The former officer acknowledged those challenges but said they should be addressed through better training, improved forensic capacity and stronger supervision rather than by permitting longer periods of detention.
He maintained that shortening the detention period would not undermine legitimate police investigations but would encourage greater efficiency and accountability.
