Arrested MPs: No permission needed, ‘It was no march’

PERMISSION from police to march was never applied for by businessmen and other concerned constituents of central Trinidad on Monday, because they never intended to march.

However the concerned group, who organised the march which included UNC MPs Manohar Ramsaran and Hamza Rafeeq, were advised and allowed by officers from the Chaguanas police station to walk in groups of two in a “peace walk” against crime. They were however stopped by police and charged for marching without permission. Sources confirmed this to Newsday yesterday, saying that the subsequent arrest of Ramsaran, Rafeeq and seven others should be blamed on the Chaguanas police for allowing the MPs and other constituents to breach the law, by allowing them to walk through the street. Ironically, it was under the UNC that the Summary Offences Amendment Act 1998, was passed. It was piloted by former National Security Minister, Joseph Theodore, and increased the minimum time to inform the Commissioner of Police of a group’s intention to hold a public meeting or march from 24 hours to 48 hours.

Theodore in presenting the Bill for debate in the House of Representatives on June 5, 1998 as reported in Hansard, explained that “it is purely a facilitating arrangement” to make “sure that some unscrupulous person does not deliberately use this 24-hour period to apply for permission to hold a meeting, for example, at his time on a Friday afternoon, and create more problems than good, if the response does not reach by the afternoon before the meeting is scheduled to take place the next day.” He said the requirement “takes cognisance of the duty of the police to protect and serve, since whenever large groups or crowds congregate, there must be attendant security concerns.”  The amendment also made it an offence to hold a meeting for any other purpose listed in the schedule and increased the penalty on summary conviction for breaching the section from $2,000 or 12 months to $10,000 or two years imprisonment.

The PNM during debate on the Bill objected to the legislation and voted against it, the vote being18 for, eight against in the House. The Independent Senators, too, in the Senate, objected to the amendment and there was a vote of 13 for and 11 against for the Bill in the Upper House. Members of the then Opposition PNM had labelled the Bill repressive. Ramsaran had initially called on the business community in Chaguanas to lock their doors on Monday, in solidarity with businesses in Princes Town over the escalating crime wave. Newsday was reliably informed that over the weekend, constituents decided that in addition to closing their businesses, they would walk through the Borough to emphasise their disgust. As a result, a group of people including Ramsaran met at KFC and proceeded along the Chaguanas Main Road in a “peace walk.” Newsday was told that officers from the Chaguanas police allowed them to continue, advising them that they were not to walk in groups of more than two, neither use placards nor carry loud speakers. The group conformed. They were subsequently confronted by other police officers led by ACP Oswyn Allard at the Chaguanas market and after a “clash” between police and the group, the nine were charged.

Ramsaran was charged with inciting a public march for which no permit was obtained, and the other eight were charged with taking part in a demonstration for which no permit was obtained. They were all granted bail and are to re-appear in court on Monday. Former Attorney General Ramesh Maharaj explained that while anyone can march or demonstrate, it was subject to the permission of the police. He however said he could not comment on Monday’s incident because he did not know the facts of the case — who organised it, who applied for a permit or whether they were in fact marching. Maharaj said the amendment was to facilitate the administrative processes of the police to enable them more time to deal with requests for permission to march. He said if permission was denied, the person has the right to seek judicial review of the decision and the court has the power to tell the police to overturn the police decision.