Activists threaten court action after police deny prison-reform march

TWO social activists have issued a pre-action protocol letter threatening to pursue judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Police after being denied permission to hold a peaceful march calling for prison reform.

Vishal Persad, a blogger and founder of Millennials for Change, and Umar Abdullah, leader of the First Wave Movement, had planned the protest for April 26, aiming to raise public awareness about three critical areas: the reform and repeal of the 1943 prison rules, the enforcement of a constitutional right to a speedy trial, and the implementation of a policy allowing for conjugal visits for inmates.

The march was intended to start at the Port of Spain prison on Frederick Street and end at the Red House, where both activists were expected to address the media and the public.

On April 23, the activists formally submitted an application to the Commissioner of Police for permission to hold the event, as required under the Summary Offences Act. However, the commissioner denied the request, citing concerns that the protest’s focus on prison conditions could incite public disorder, the risk of contraband smuggling into the prison, and the strain on police resources during the general election season, particularly political rallies planned on the same day.

However, attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan, representing Persad and Abdullah argued that the police decision was unlawful, irrational, and a disproportionate infringement on their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The letter said the denial appeared to reflect personal biases rather than objective assessments of public-safety risks.

"The mere highlighting of issues within the prison system does not reasonably constitute a security threat," Ramkhalwhan said in the letter. "Framing a non-violent demonstration as a security risk undermines fundamental democratic freedoms without sufficient justification."

The letter also questioned the police's resource allocation, pointing out that officers had been deployed at the protest site to prevent the march rather than facilitate it, suggesting that resources were indeed available but misused to suppress peaceful activism.

“Framing a non-violent demonstration as a security risk undermines constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression. “Such reasoning renders the decision to prohibit the march not only arbitrary but also unlawful, as it infringes on fundamental democratic freedoms without sufficient justification.

“I further posit that there is no evidence that the Commissioner of Police gave due consideration to whether the imposition of conditions or restrictions could have sufficiently mitigated any perceived security concerns.

“Furthermore, the justification advanced, that police resources needed to be ‘strategically allocated’, cannot serve as a blanket rationale to curtail constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression and assembly, particularly in the lead-up to a general election, when open democratic engagement is of paramount importance.”

The attorney argued that it was plainly contradictory that police officers were in fact deployed to the proposed location of the march for the specific purpose of ensuring that it did not proceed.

He said this revealed that the necessary resources were available — not to facilitate the peaceful exercise of democratic rights, but rather to suppress it.

“Such selective deployment of state resources to silence civil society, rather than support peaceful activism, represents a misuse of authority and runs counter to the fundamental obligation of the police to enable, not obstruct, the public's right to express dissent — especially on matters of public interest and political accountability.”

Persad and Abdullah offered to work with the police to mitigate any concerns, including limiting the number of participants or rescheduling the march for later that day.

They also called on the commissioner to rescind the decision and grant permission for the rescheduled march.

Ramkhalwhan also questioned the decision, asking, “Commissioner, how exactly would a peaceful prison reform march starting at the Port of Spain prison breach the peace or threaten public order? Are you suggesting that merely highlighting issues within the prison system is a security risk — or is this just an excuse to suppress the public?

“Commissioner, are you saying the police cannot multi-task? If political rallies stretch the service so thin, what does that say about the capacity and planning for the police to handle multiple responsibilities at once?”

He said his clients intended to seek relief from the courts by filing judicial review proceedings.