Courting guns

THE POSITION taken by the head of the Police Service Social Welfare Association Gideon Dickson – and ably supported by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar – in relation to the Judiciary’s ban on guns in court is disappointingly short-sighted but not surprising.

In the wake of an incident involving an officer being refused entry by court staff at the O’Meara Judicial Complex on November 6, the Judiciary confirmed in a statement its long-standing screening policy for its premises, which it said had been in place since 2015.

But in a disclosure that should make all right-thinking citizens pause, the Judiciary revealed it has been experiencing “issues” with “certain officers” deliberately disregarding its policy.

This month’s incident, simply the latest in a line, saw things escalate “to the point where the TTPS officer issued a threat to arrest court staff.”

Instead of condemning such conduct, Mr Dickson defended it, saying officers should not proceed into court if they have to put down their guns and accused the Judiciary of “creating a volatile situation.”

Adding fuel to the fire, Ms Persad-Bissessar on November 9 openly criticised the Judiciary’s policy, saying police should be allowed to keep their firearms when going to court.

But seemingly lost on both officials is the fact that if an officer is so temperamental as to threaten to arrest a security guard for merely insisting on the rules, it is worth questioning if that officer should be entrusted with a gun in the first place.

This is no academic question given the problems we have seen with the so-called use-of-force policy of the police.

Some today feel criminals can bypass checks at courts and sneak arms into such premises to attack officers there or in the vicinity.

However, letting cops walk in with guns makes things infinitely easier. Malicious actors can simply wrest weapons away.

This endangers not only police, but also court staff, lawyers, people on bail, individuals charged with minor offences, and members of the public in the vicinity of these buildings.

It is simply inappropriate to suggest law-enforcement officers should openly flout judiciary rules.

Even worse, it is irresponsible to ask them to also breach police directives, since officials like Deputy Commissioner of Police Junior Benjamin have called on officers to comply.

Why can't a compromise between all parties be worked out?

Ms Persad-Bissessar, a former prime minister who aspires to return to the job, has called the Judiciary’s policy “hypocrisy.”

Yet the constitutional principle that the Judiciary should be free to manage itself without interference is not supported by her stance.

The UNC leader’s party has frequently criticised the PNM for overstepping its bounds when it comes to police matters and the separation of powers.

Yet, recklessly playing politics with gun regulation, gun-use laws and, now, court safety does not help the UNC distinguish itself from what it alleges of the PNM.