As the Government returns to Parliament today to seek a three-month extension of the current State of Emergency (SoE), it does so against the backdrop of the Opposition’s threat of legal action.
That stance makes one thing clear: the Government will receive no support from the Opposition benches for the extension—support, it should be noted, that it does not require to secure parliamentary approval.
More troubling, however, is what this signals. The country’s two major political parties remain far from any shared understanding of what is truly required to confront the crime crisis.
Trinidad and Tobago is now trapped in a cycle that began with the first of the recent SoEs introduced by the former PNM administration on December 30, 2024. While the National Security Council points to data indicating “meaningful disruptions” in criminal activity, the average citizen is left asking a simpler—and far more urgent—question: what happens when the emergency ends?
The answers thus far have been deeply unsatisfactory.
Individuals detained under preventative detention orders are released once the SoE lapses, only to be re-identified as persons of interest when crime inevitably resurges. When the previous SoE concluded, 117 detainees were released back into the population because the State lacked sufficient evidence to bring formal charges against them. This revolving-door reality undermines public confidence and raises fundamental questions about the sustainability of the current approach.
With the Government’s majority in the House of Representatives, extending the SoE today may well be a foregone conclusion. Convincing the population that the legislature possesses a coherent, long-term solution to the crime problem, however, is an entirely different matter.
Regardless of political persuasion, we all inhabit the same geographic space, walk the same streets, and, ultimately, share the same fate. For that reason alone, the Government and Opposition must urgently come to the table and craft a unified, long-term national security blueprint.
History shows that such collaboration, though difficult, is not impossible.
Following widespread public outrage over a surge in kidnappings targeting business owners, former prime minister Patrick Manning and then opposition leader Basdeo Panday met in June 2004 for bilateral crime consultations. Those discussions led to an executive package of reform bills being brought before Parliament.
The debates that followed were intense, but both leaders acknowledged the systemic failures that demanded repair. Even when initial efforts stalled over disagreements about executive authority, the two sides established a bipartisan, prime ministerial technical team of legal experts to redraft key legislation.
Political mistrust frequently threatened to derail the process. Yet sustained public pressure kept both sides engaged long enough to produce a unified legislative approach. That effort ultimately contributed to a restructuring of the country’s law enforcement management framework, culminating in the passage of the Police Service Act, 2006, and the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2006.
This is the standard of political maturity the current moment demands.
Borrowing from our own recent history offers a clear path forward.
The country does not need deeper division; it needs deliberate cooperation.
Rising above politics on crime is not merely an ideal—it is an urgent national necessity.
