Clear and present danger

The report of Acting Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vincel Edwards was tabled in the House of Representatives by Alfonso on Friday after it was considered by the National Security Council the day prior. Previously, Acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams had declined to make the report public, prompting justified outcry given the importance of the Police Service as an institution, as well as the widespread, dire impact the events of March 23 had on the citizenry and on the business sector. So we welcome the tabling of the report.

The report finds that “malicious obedience” to prior directives occurred and was allowed to occur due to break downs in police command. It also reveals for the first time that members of the Special Branch, the Guard and Emergency Branch and the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) took part in the street blockade activities. Edwards states that several intelligence-gathering units did not have reports of the activity prior.

While Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar took steps on Friday to emphasise that it was only a small band of junior officers who were responsible, we cannot take comfort in this. In fact, it is the opposite. It is precisely because such a small band was able to so effectively cause widespread harm and to bring the Service into such disapprobrium, that the nation should be concerned. “Clear and present danger” is no hollow sound-bite in this context: what was painfully demonstrated on that fateful Monday is how vulnerable the Police Service is to small groups in strategic places.

We cannot say for sure whether, as in 1970 and 1990, the State was caught sleeping. Yet, Edwards’s findings would suggest so. This is why while we agree with the decision to table the report in Parliament, we do not agree with the decision to refer the matter to a tiresome Parliament committee for scrutiny. Instead, the matter should go immediately to a Commission of Inquiry, which is in fact one of the recommendations contained in the report. A judge-led inquiry is needed to fully probe and ventilate all of the issues, to identify causes and make recommendations as to how these matters should be addressed.

It is important to note that Edwards found that the technical legal definition for industrial action was not made out. Yet, it was clear enough to the investigating officer that the coordinated activity — spanning Trinidad and Tobago — was “malicious obedience”. But if the blockade on March 23 was not a form of protest for higher pay, what was it? In one sense, citizens would be reassured if it were to be conclusively shown that the cops were acting for more pay. That would provide a clear motive. Yet, the absence of such opens many other possibilities. Was this an act of terrorism? Of insurrection? All of these are questions a thorough inquiry should ventilate.

In any event, Edward’s findings in relation to the legal definition of industrial action is unlikely to convince that the matter was wholly irrelevant to ongoing wage talks, though it does underline the gaps in the law on the question of police protest and signal the nature of the substantial barriers to disciplinary action in this matter.

Another disturbing aspect of the report is the fact that the investigating officer reports that he did not get cooperation from the Head of the Special Branch. Further, the scope of the recommendations in the report differs greatly from what was communicated by the then Acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams in early April. This, too, shows why the matter must be handled by an independent inquiry which is capable of seeking answers without barriers such as policies and cultures within the organisation of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.