Opposition: ‘Hot spot’ bill risks permanent emergency powers

Opposition MPs have mounted a united front against the government’s proposed legislation to create special crime “hot spot” zones. They warned the bill is constitutionally dangerous, poorly consulted and risks entrenching emergency-style powers long after the State of Emergency (SoE) ends, as they made their way into Parliament.

Speaking to reporters on January 16, ahead of the parliamentary debate, Opposition Chief Whip Marvin Gonzales said the proposed law raised serious red flags and should never have reached Parliament without broad national consultation.

“One would expect a bill of such constitutional gravity and importance, which can impact thousands of lives, the government would do the responsible thing and engage in appropriate consultations with national community groups.”

Gonzales said he first became aware of the proposal during the Christmas period and initially did not believe the government would pursue it seriously. He said the opposition had since identified numerous concerns, including fines of up to $20,000 for offences such as obstructing security operations or providing false names and addresses.

“We intend to canvass those issues and put them squarely on the floor of Parliament,” he said.

Questioned if the bill would require a special majority to pass, given its constitutional implications. He said even if the government commanded a majority in the House, Senate support would still be necessary.

He said the timing of the bill, days before the SoE expires, was deeply troubling. Lamenting when the SoE was first introduced, the government insisted it was not linked to the general crime situation but to specific national security threats.

“They came back asking for an extension and did not give the country an update on the allegations used to justify it. Now, when you listen to the government, crime is being used as the justification.”

He said citizens must ask themselves if the government and state officials were truthful to the population when the SoE was called.

Responding to claims by the Attorney General John Jeremie the legislation was a necessary crime-fighting tool, Gonzales said the government had failed to pursue meaningful, long-term solutions.

“What it clearly shows is the government does not plan to do the kind of work or pursue the types of policies that will turn around the lives of people who are inclined to commit crime,” he said. “The only mechanism they intend to use is to police and harass our people.”

As the SoE comes to an end, Gonzales said he expected most detainees to be released without charges.

“The vast majority will walk free.”

Former national security minister and MP for Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West Stuart Young also strongly criticised the proposal, warning it was unconstitutional, draconian and likely to trigger legal challenges.

“It seems to me all this is is an attempt to get around the Constitution and the State of Emergency legislation, which has safeguards in place.”

He expressed alarm at what he described as an excessive concentration of power in the hands of the prime minister.

“All of the power now resides in one person: a prime minister being able to say your neighbourhood, as opposed to her neighbourhood, is one the police and Defence Force can literally lock down,” Young said.

Under the bill, he noted, authorities would be empowered to cordon off areas, impose curfews, and stop and search residents without warrants.

“It is a very, very draconian piece of legislation.”

He said such measures were deliberately avoided during the PNM government. He added sufficient laws already exist to address criminal activity.

Young also raised concerns about ongoing detentions under the SoE and the absence of charges.

“You can’t just suspend people’s rights,” he said. “I expect lawsuits. We’re already seeing certain lawyers challenge it, and rightly so.”

Also rejecting claims by Jeremie there was legal precedent for the measures, Young said the government simply borrowed from Jamaica.

“There’s no precedent in law. What they’ve done is copy Jamaican legislation.”

Young noted Jamaica’s Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of similar provisions.

Laventille West MP Kareem Marcelle echoed similar concerns, warning the bill could usher in a permanent SoE and unfairly stigmatise entire communities.

“How do you classify a hot spot?” Marcelle asked. “Is it homicides, robberies or some other offences? A reduction in homicide does not mean there is a reduction in criminal activity on the whole.”

He cautioned against demonising communities based on incomplete data, recalling past rhetoric about sealing off Laventille.

“That is why data is so important,” Marcelle said. He believes the country is now “caught up in a war of numbers.”

Marcelle questioned if the legislation would be applied equitably and warned it allowed for curfews of up to 72 hours and warrantless entry by members of the Defence Force.

“You are talking about members of the Defence Force entering your home without a warrant,” he said. “For anything from loud music to serious offences.”

He argued soldiers are not trained to enforce summary offences and said the lack of clarity posed risks to both citizens and law enforcement.

“This is something that every citizen should be paying attention to,” Marcelle said. “I am ready, able and willing to represent my constituents and be their voice.”