By Francis Joseph
Alyssa Phillip, the social activist leading the public protest over the Police handling of the Joshua Samaroo killing, and wounding of her friend, Kaia Sealey, has been charged among other offences, with leading a march without the permission of the Commissioner of Police.Phillip and her mother, Camille Caresquero, were arrested on Friday during Labour Day celebrations in Fyzabad.
They were taken to the Fyzabad Police Station. While there, Phillip complained of feeling unwell and was taken to the Siparia Health Facility. This was the second time within a month that Phillip and her mother have been charged.On June 1, they pleaded not guilty to two offences when they appeared before Magistrate Indira Misir-Gosine. They were charged with disorderly behaviour and influencing public opinion in a manner that is prejudicial to public safety under the Emergency Powers Regulation.
They were arrested days earlier when they led a protest outside the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain.
Days ago, Phillip indicated that she would be staging “Protest No 19” at the Labour Day celebrations. She kept to that promise, but her protest was short-lived as she was arrested along the route in Fyzabad.The charges laid:
Alyssa Phillip:1. Being a leader of a march and failing to call on such march to disperse.2. Disorderly behaviour.3. Resisting arrest.-
Camille Caresquero:1. Being present at a march and failing to disperse.2. Obstructing a police officer.3. Resisting arrest.
On Saturday, the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) issued a media release explaining what had occurred on Friday. Commissioner of Police, Allister Guevarro, who was in Fyzabad, also commented in that release.The following is the full release:”
The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) wishes to address public commentary surrounding the arrest of two individuals during the Labour Day procession in Fyzabad on June 19, 2026. The facts of this matter are straightforward, and the actions of officers were grounded firmly in the Summary Offences Act, Chap. 11:02, and in the duty of the TTPS to preserve public order, public safety, and the sanctity of the annual Labour Day procession.
Trade Union Movement Received Lawful Permission
The Trade Union movement applied for and received the requisite permission to stage their annual Labour Day street procession in accordance with:* Section 112 — No person may organise, lead or take part in any public march unless a permit has been issued by the Commissioner of Police.* Section 113 — Applications must be made in writing, within the statutory time frame.* Section 114 — The Commissioner may grant or refuse a permit based on public safety and public order considerations.The Trade Union movement complied fully with these legal requirements. Their procession was therefore lawful, authorised, and protected under the permit issued.
Unauthorised Group Attempted to Join the Procession
A social activist and a small group of followers, who were not members of the Trade Union movement, attempted to join the procession.Police officers:* Verified with the Trade Union organisers that the group was not part of the authorised procession.* Spoke directly with the leader of the activist group and explained that:1. They were not covered under the Trade Union’s permit.2. Their participation would constitute a separate public march, requiring its own permit under the law.3. Their actions could jeopardise the lawful holding of the Labour Day procession, which the TTPS is obligated to safeguard.Despite this clear explanation, the group proceeded to form and participate in an unauthorised procession at the rear of the lawful march.
Legal Basis for Police Action
Under the Summary Offences Act:* Section 116(1) empowers a police officer (Sergeant or above) to require the leader of an unlawful march to call upon it to disperse.* Section 116(2) makes it an offence for the leader to refuse or fail to do so.* Section 116(4) makes it an offence for any person present at such a march to fail to disperse when lawfully instructed.The leader of the activist group refused to call on the unlawful procession to disperse. Officers therefore acted immediately and lawfully to prevent escalation and protect the integrity of the authorised event.
High Court Judgment Clarifying the Law
The TTPS also draws attention to the recent High Court judgment in Walker v. Attorney General, CV2023‑00302 delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim, which provides authoritative clarification on the distinction between public meetings and public marches.Justice Rahim held that:* A public meeting requires notice, not permission.* The Commissioner of Police may prohibit a meeting based on statutory criteria, but no permit is required for a meeting.* A public march, however, is fundamentally different:1. There is a “clear and unambiguous prohibition” against public marches unless permission is granted.2. Permission must be sought and granted before a march can lawfully take place.This judgment confirms that any group wishing to participate in a public march must have a permit, and that attaching an unauthorised procession to a lawful one is a breach of the Act.The activist group in question did not give notice of a meeting, nor did they apply for or receive a permit for a march. Their actions therefore fell squarely within the statutory definition of an unlawful public march.
Why Enforcement Was Necessary
The Labour Day procession is a historic national event and the TTPS has a statutory responsibility to:* Maintain public order* Protect participants and bystanders* Ensure that lawful events are not hijacked or disrupted* Prevent unauthorized groups from attaching themselves to permitted marches* Uphold the conditions of permits issued under the lawAllowing an unpermitted procession to merge with a lawful one would have undermined the event, created security risks, and violated the legal framework governing public marches.
Statement from the Commissioner of Police
“The TTPS respects the rights of all citizens to assemble and express their views. However, these rights must be exercised within the framework of the law. Officers acted with restraint, clarity, and professionalism. It is regrettable that enforcement became necessary, but the sanctity of the Labour Day procession should never be compromised by persons seeking to attach unrelated agendas to a permitted national event.”Commitment to Public ConfidenceThe TTPS remains committed to:* Upholding constitutional rights* Enforcing the law without fear or favour* Ensuring national events proceed safely* Engaging the public respectfully and transparentlyGroups wishing to hold public marches are encouraged to follow the lawful permit process to avoid similar incidents.”
