by Kenrick Quashie
The extremely decisive outcome of the 2025 general elections must be properly understood. Vincentians did not merely vote for a change of elected politicians; they voted to change our entire system of operations (modus operandi). That distinction matters and it comes with certain expectations. Elections are not only symbolic exercises designed to change the politicians. They have consequences, particularly for those who presided over, enabled, or normalised practices that the electorate has outrightly rejected.
In that context, Commissioner of Police Enville Williams and others in similar senior positions should seriously consider resigning or ask the current government to relieve them of their position, not as an act of punishment, but as an act of responsibility. In mature democracies, when public confidence in key institutions collapses, leadership change is often necessary to restore trust. That is not victimisation; it is accountability.
The reality is that the police force has been in serious trouble for years, even before the tenure of the current commissioner. Morale is low. Working conditions are poor. Public trust has been eroded. Most troubling of all, the force has become deeply politicised. The commissioner must be held responsible for allowing political leaders to exert influence over operational matters.
The Constitution grants the commissioner authority over promotions up to the rank of station sergeant, yet that authority appeared to be routinely surrendered to the political directorate. Leadership requires backbone, and in this regard, the commissioner demonstrated a willingness to bend where he should have stood firm. That weakness was placed on full display in the immediate aftermath of the elections. The fact that the former prime minister was allowed to retain a full police protection detail that included an inspector of police days after suffering a decisive electoral defeat and that this arrangement was only adjusted after direction from the new government, speaks volumes. This was not a matter of law or protocol, but of judgment and independence. A commissioner of police must be able to act in the interest of the state, not out of their personal loyalty to a former leader.
When senior officials feel personally indebted to politicians rather than professionally accountable to the Constitution, they become liabilities. This stands in stark contrast to what we know of former commissioner Randolph Toussaint, who guarded the autonomy of the police force fiercely, even while maintaining a close personal friendship with then prime minister Sir James Mitchell. That is what professional independence looks like.
It should surprise no one that many police officers used their votes to speak. They understood that through the ballot box they could express what they could not say openly. They knew that a change in government would likely mean the removal of compromised leadership at the top of the force. Their vote was a plea for institutional rescue. This moment represents a genuine opportunity to restore autonomy, professionalism, and morale within the police force.
It must also be said plainly that NDP supporters bore the brunt of a politicised police force. Citizens were arrested. Democratic rights were trampled upon. No fewer than 13 cases required support and intervention by the NDP as a result of actions facilitated under the leadership of Commissioner Williams, his predecessor and other senior officers. Some of these officers were so disrespectful to leaders of the NDP when they were in opposition. For this reason, they must not be considered for the role of commissioner. They were at the forefront of suppressing citizens’ democratic rights and remain entangled in a long-running court matter involving Adriana King, who has been unfairly treated and requires urgent relief. Elevating such individuals would send exactly the wrong message.
To add to the issues and what is especially troubling, is that several politically-appointed heads of statutory bodies have not tendered their resignations following this decisive electoral outcome. Instead, they appear content to wait to be fired. One must ask why? Is it the expectation of a more favourable severance package? Or is it a political strategy to use their firing to cry “victimisation”? Whatever the reason, it reflects a failure to read the atmosphere in this national moment.
At the same time, it is critical that the new government does not repeat the mistakes of the past. We must not see a return to the blatant victimisation that followed the ULP’s victory in the 2001 general elections, when watchmen, janitors, and other low-level public servants received dismissal letters within days. That was wrong then, and it would be wrong now.
There is a clear and important difference between holding senior leadership accountable and persecuting ordinary workers. The former is essential for democratic renewal; the latter undermines it. The people voted for reform, professionalism, and fairness and not revenge.
If the new administration is to honour the spirit of this mandate, it must insist on accountability at the top while protecting the dignity and security of those at the bottom. Change does not mean chaos. Renewal does not mean retaliation and accountability must never be confused with victimization.
If we get this balance right, St. Vincent and the Grenadines can finally begin the institutional reset that the people so clearly demanded at the polls.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].
Well said my familya my nieghbour, you break down everything like a.b.c even the smallest person can understand the heads of department 🏬 failed we as citizens so they have to go not the workers them.
Blind loyalty to men in power is very dangerous and disastrous to a nation. There are a number of people under the former leader who showed that their loyalty was not to their profession or their nation. Such people’s performances need to be carefully, lawfully and professionally reviewed. When they have been duly vetted, the appropriate actions should be taken. When a tyrannical ruler has held the reign of power for such a very long time. It is foolish not to think there is no need for a review of the ranks of leadership during his rule. Many people in the country are now finding their voices and the courage to speak.That alone speaks volumes.Quashie is right,not victimization but due diligence and wisdom in new leadership.We must teach our young ones not to curry favor or be afraid of tyranny in high positions and when your duty and profession call for loyalty to the nation,the interest and welfare of your nation must be first and not political loyalty to any party. Those who are entrusted to guard and serve must know that when there is clash between those you are called to serve and the policies of tyrants, people are more important than tyrannical polices. Therefore, you give way to people. In the history of nations,many tyrants were able to kill millions of their people because of blind loyalty to them by those who were supposed to protect their nations.
Bravo, Mr. Quashie. The crux of the matter is that, “When senior officials feel personally indebted to politicians rather than professionally accountable to the Constitution, they become liabilities.” Indeed, “leadership change is often necessary to restore trust.” I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment and give you credit for making your points so lucidly.