ZOSOs and rule of law: Lessons not yet learned

THE EDITOR: I support the Law Reform (Zones of Special Operations) (Special Security and Community Development Measures) Bill, 2026 in principle. However, serious concerns arise when the bill is examined at the level of implementation. As currently drafted, it is out of step with operational reality and reflects fundamental weaknesses in legislative technique.

The bill is flawed due to poor drafting and an apparent failure to appreciate existing legal frameworks. Several provisions merely restate police procedures that are already firmly entrenched in the Police Standing Orders.

For example, clause 16(2)(c) provides that a female person shall be searched only by a female police officer. This is not new law; it is settled police procedure. Matters of internal police practice have no place in substantive acts of Parliament. Including them amounts to the Executive, through legislation, “teaching” police officers what they are already required to know.

This blurring of law-making and operational guidance undermines the purpose of legislation.

The bill seeks to establish a framework for special security and community development measures in designated areas, with the stated objective of preserving public order, citizen security and the rule of law. In practice, it advances a crime-control model based on security force occupation. This approach follows the recent discontinuation of the state of emergency (SoE), yet the government has failed to account for the serious shortcomings of that regime.

The SoE was marked by widespread allegations of police abuse of power and unlawful detention. Before introducing another exceptional security framework, the government must answer critical questions. How many people were detained under preventive detention orders during the SoE? How many were charged? Of those released without charge, how many are likely to pursue legal action against the state for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or unlawful arrest? These questions go directly to accountability and the financial exposure of taxpayers.

The case of businessman Danny Guerra is instructive. Guerra was detained on November 20, 2025, under a preventive detention order and remained in custody for almost six weeks before being released on January 2. It was contended that there was no evidence capable of satisfying the strict statutory preconditions under the emergency powers regulations.

Notably, just three days before his arrest, the government amended those regulations by Legal Notice No 423 of 2025, inserting Regulation 20A, which purported to clarify prosecutorial powers under other written laws. Even so, serious questions remain as to the lawfulness of Guerra’s detention. If he were to successfully sue the state, the cost would ultimately be borne by taxpayers.

On January 20, Justice Frank Seepersad again urged Parliament to consider legislation to hold police officers personally accountable for abuses of authority, following a case involving wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. That warning should not be ignored. Legislative reform must be evidence-based and fiscally responsible, particularly where police misconduct exposes the state to significant liability.

Ultimately, no legislative amendment, whether under a state of emergency or a ZOSOs regime, can remedy poor police training or weak accountability structures. Expanded powers without precision, safeguards and oversight will only reproduce past failures. If the ZOSOs Bill is to be effective and constitutionally sound, it must reflect legal discipline, institutional reality and a genuine commitment to accountability; not legislative symbolism.

VANNA JANKIEPERSAD

attorney