BY GARY GRIFFITH
Former Commissioner of Police
Members of the Opposition have challenged Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar SC to justify her statement that approximately 400 lives have been saved as a result of the State of Emergency.
Before the political rabble-rousers on either side begin pointing fingers at me instead of considering the facts, let me be clear: I have consistently maintained that a State of Emergency should not be used as a crime-fighting tool.
However, balance and honesty are required. On this issue, the Prime Minister is correct.
Trinidad and Tobago had reached the horrendous position of recording more than 600 murders per year. Since the introduction of the SOE, the annual murder rate has fallen to approximately 360. That represents roughly 240 fewer murders per year—or approximately 20 fewer lives lost every month.
To further break it down, that is two lives less, lost every three days, during an SOE compared to Pre-SOE.
Over a two-year period, that trajectory would amount to approximately 480 fewer murders. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s estimate that 400 lives were saved is not political fantasy. It is a reasonable conclusion based on the figures.
The Opposition cannot simply dismiss the mathematics because acknowledging it may be politically inconvenient.
However, the more important question is why the country reached the point where an SOE became necessary in the first place.
The Prime Minister was forced to resort to this drastic measure because proven anti-crime policies had been abandoned and Trinidad and Tobago was burdened with an incompetent Minister of National Security and Commissioners of Police during the last Administration, who simply did not know what to do. Had that failed leadership and lack of effective policy continued, the country would likely have remained on a trajectory of more than 600 murders annually.
The SOE interrupted that trajectory, but it should never be regarded as a sustainable crime-fighting strategy. It gives the State extraordinary and potentially draconian powers, including the ability to incarcerate people for extended periods without evidence being presented or charges being laid.
A country should not have to suspend the normal constitutional rights of its citizens because those entrusted with national security cannot develop and implement effective anti-crime policies.
We have already proved that major reductions in violent crime can be achieved without an SOE. Between 2013 and 2015, under the UNC Government, Trinidad and Tobago experienced the greatest reduction in serious crime in 31 years. From August 2020 to August 2021, the country recorded fewer than 350 murders—the lowest number in more than 15 years—without emergency powers that gave the state the authority to incarcerate persons for months without evidence.
Those results were achieved through policies, intelligence, technology, targeted operations, specialised units, accountability and competent leadership—not by giving the State the power to detain citizens without charge.
Therefore, two things can be true at the same time: the State of Emergency has reduced murders and saved hundreds of lives, and Trinidad and Tobago should never have been placed in a position where an SOE was required to achieve that result.
The Opposition should stop playing politics with the figures and acknowledge the reduction. The Government must now go further by implementing effective and sustainable anti-crime policies so that these gains can continue without repeated proclamations by the President and without the prolonged suspension of citizens’ constitutional protections.
An SOE may stop the bleeding, but competent leadership and effective policy are what will cure the disease.
