Roger Alexander defends special operations plan for government-held areas

Roger Alexander defends special operations in constituencies supporting the bill. Critics question the political basis of the rollout.

Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander is defending the Government’s plan to concentrate special policing operations in constituencies represented by lawmakers who support the Special Operations Bill, arguing that authorities should not impose the measures on communities whose representatives oppose them. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has said the proposed operations would initially be authorised in 26 United National Congress-held constituencies, 70 UNC-controlled local government electoral districts and two Tobago constituencies represented by the Tobago People’s Party, following consultation with Tobago Chief Secretary Farley Augustine.

Speaking to reporters on September 22, Alexander said residents in constituencies represented by opposition MPs who support the legislation should make their position known to their representatives. He argued that if an MP says a constituency does not want the measures, the Government should respect that position rather than force the operations on the area. Alexander described the proposed approach as creating a “wall of law enforcement officers” intended to prevent people involved in crime from entering communities where the operations are implemented.

The proposal has drawn criticism from the People’s National Movement, which has questioned the decision to link the deployment of a national crime-fighting measure to the political representation of individual constituencies. Alexander rejected the criticism, including claims that the approach is discriminatory, while Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro separately sought to reassure the public that the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service’s mandate remains national. The Special Operations Bill itself establishes a framework for policing districts and special operations, including possible military assistance, but does not state that enforcement must be limited to constituencies controlled by a particular political party.