Over the past two days, as Government sought parliamentary approval to extend the current State of Emergency (SoE) for an additional three months, further insight was provided into intelligence gathered within the prison system.
Attorney General John Jeremie has taken the lead in communicating with the public during the debate and has so far revealed some troubling findings of collusion and compromise involving Maximum Security Prison inmates, prison officers, and, in some instances, attorneys.
And while the full story of what led to the SoE declaration may never be told, there remain several unanswered questions which beg for greater transparency, in an environment in which public confidence has already been significantly rattled.
Investigators have indicated, based on intelligence gathered over months, that there has been an evolving threat to State and judicial officials that only recently reached a point of actionable urgency.
But this begs the question, why now?
We have also been told the national threat has not resulted from general gang activity, but a specific, coordinated effort aimed at destabilisation. Underscoring the seriousness of the situation, the Attorney General likened the threat to the 1990 attempted coup by the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen, while Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro described it as a targeted conspiracy against key State figures, as opposed to any widespread breakdown of public order.
With this said, the country is rightly concerned about the apparent sophistication and reach of this alleged criminal network, which is seemingly capable of planning a major assault from within the confines of the prison system.
If this is the case, it exposes troubling vulnerabilities within our correctional facilities and highlights deeper structural weaknesses across the national security framework that must be urgently addressed. Given the longstanding issues of contraband and gang infiltration within the prison system, it has to be asked again, why now?
If such plots have been developing over time, what specific actions by the State and Judiciary could have triggered escalation at this particular point?
In her statement to Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar touched on CEPEP contracts and the level of criminality her Government believes was being enabled through the programme.
However, she stopped short of directly linking the termination of these contracts—and the resulting disruption of financial channels to gang elements—to any retaliatory plans or coordinated threats.
While it is reasonable to speculate about a potential connection between Government’s crackdown on illicit funding and the emergence of these threats, this still does not explain why the Director of Public Prosecutions has become the target of a planned assassination plot.
While it is understood that the State cannot disclose all intelligence related to the alleged plot, the public remains uncertain as to whether the threat could have been contained without resorting to emergency powers.
It also remains unclear whether the SoE extension is absolutely necessary at this time.
The declaration of an SoE—though warranted in cases of immediate national security threat—inevitably carries significant implications for civil liberties and public confidence.
For the public to fully grasp and support such extraordinary measures, there must be a clearer explanation of the underlying threats, as well as a transparent, long-term strategy for dismantling the entrenched criminal networks that have taken root.
Addressing this directly would lend greater legitimacy to Government’s actions and help ensure sustained public support over the coming months of this extended SoE.