PARALLEL AKS

Opposition Member of Parliament for San Juan-Barataria, Dr Fuad Khan, rather than setting up an Anti-Kidnapping (investigative) Squad parallel to the Police AKS, should instead call on his fellow Opposition MPs to support Government's original Anti-Kidnapping Bill, whose provisions would have acted in deterring would be kidnappers.

Critical sections of the Bill, which would have required a special majority, as they would have meant an amendment to the Constitution, had to be withdrawn by the Government, when the Opposition United National Congress refused to support any Government Bill, until the administration's plan for Caroni (1975) Limited was presented to and debated in Parliament.  The provisions called for, inter alia, the non granting of bail for persons charged with kidnapping, as well as for stiffer penalties for persons found guilty of a kidnapping offence.

Dr Khan would have served his constituency and the rest of Trinidad and Tobago better had he supported the Anti-Kidnapping Bill. It is not without irony that Dr Khan, who, along with his fellow United National Congress MPs, refused to support the Bill, is "now calling on the Prime Minister to support" his pie in the sky proposal, "and lend whatever assistance he can to see that it is a success". While we hold that every reasonable approach should be made to ending the nightmare of kidnappings and the obscene demands for ransoms for the release of victims, yet Khan's romanticised plan would expose participants, however unintentionally, to danger, and possibly, again inadvertently, pose a threat to the safety of those kidnapped.

The Police Service, and by extension the Ministry of National Security, would be compromising its long held position on vigilante groups, should it go along with Dr Khan's suggestion that persons wishing to become members of his constituency-based civilian Anti-Kidnapping Squad, would first have to obtain police approval. But even if the police should jettison their long held position on vigilance groups, the proposed age of members — 15 to 18 — would reduce any police approval to an absurdity.

How could the police be expected to give support to the idea of persons below the age of 18 being engaged in activities, which place their lives at risk? The police would then be held both morally and legally responsible should any child taking part in “investigations”, following on a kidnapping, be attacked by kidnappers, because their questions were embarrassingly on target. The pace of police investigations into a crime may at times appear to be slow, but the police have to be careful that the wrong person is not arrested and/or that whatever evidence they may have gathered will be able to stand up in a court of law.

In kidnapping cases this is even more sensitive as any wrong moves could result in the death of the victim. In turn, very often the pace of police investigations is dictated by the willingness or unwillingness of members of the public, who may have witnessed a crime, or have information on that crime, to come forward. Dr Khan can still assist by asking his constituents to contact Crime Stoppers with any information on kidnappings or other crimes. The information given is confidential. We draw the line, however, on 15 and 18-year-olds going around San Juan and Barataria playing Sherlock Holmes. It is too dangerous.