Section 4 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago enshrines 13 fundamental rights and freedoms, guaranteed to all without discrimination based on race, origin, colour, religion or sex. These include the rights to life, liberty, security of the person, enjoyment of property and due process. It also affirms equality before the law, privacy and freedoms of expression, assembly, movement and religious belief.
A State of Emergency grants the State extraordinary powers, including the use of Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs), which allow detention without charge. By their very nature, these powers restrict fundamental rights. Yet even in such circumstances, the courts remain the ultimate arbiters of whether these powers are lawfully exercised. This safeguard is essential, as history shows that unchecked authority invites abuse.
The unlawful detention of Brent Thomas stands as a clear example of overreach and has drawn sustained criticism, including from the Prime Minister at national and Caricom levels. While no one is above the law, fairness and equity must guide its application—particularly when exercised by agents of the State.
It is the State, not individual officers, that bears the legal, financial and reputational consequences of any misuse of authority. In practical terms, that burden falls on the taxpayer. Excessive or unlawful use of emergency powers is therefore not only a legal concern, but a public one.
Recent events further underscore these concerns. The arrest of social activist Alyssa Phillip and another participant during the June 19 Labour Day celebrations in Fyzabad has been widely questioned. Civil society organisations, the Law Association, organisers of the march and members of the public have all raised legitimate issues about the proportionality of the response. Images of two women surrounded by heavily armed riot police were deeply unsettling.
Although authorities have offered explanations, these have done little to reduce public unease. The perception persists that law enforcement is reacting to widespread outrage over the fatal police shooting of Joshua Samaroo, seeking to suppress public dissent rather than manage it appropriately.
This concern is not without precedent. Former commissioner of police, Erla Harewood-Christopher, was detained and investigated over the alleged unauthorised importation of high-powered rifles for the Strategic Services Agency. Although no charges were laid, the reputational damage was sufficient to end her tenure in public office.
In Parliament on June 5, 2026, the Attorney General used the term “the one per cent” to describe a small but powerful criminal gang. In local parlance, however, the phrase carries broader implications, raising concern when high-profile members of the business community are subsequently detained without charge. Reactions have been mixed: some allege fishing expeditions, while others insist there is no smoke without fire.
If credible evidence exists, charges should follow swiftly. In their absence, the public is entitled to question whether such actions are intended to intimidate, extract compliance or inflict reputational harm.
Even in times of national strain, due process, fairness, and equity must remain paramount. The true test of a democracy lies not in how it exercises power, but in how it restrains it.
