Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has declared the first night of special operations in Maloney a success, describing gang members as cowards who disappeared when confronted by security forces.
But the operation has raised serious legal and constitutional questions about selective enforcement, untrained officers and the protection of citizens’ rights.
On November 10, Maloney became the first community declared a closed area under the Special Operations Act, 2026, with a nightly curfew from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.
Why Maloney and not Couva?
Trincity/Maloney MP Camille Robinson-Regis questioned why Maloney was locked down following a shooting that injured two people but killed nobody, while recent murders in Couva and Freeport produced no equivalent restrictions.
Residents raised similar concerns at a police community meeting, with some questioning the restrictions and others welcoming increased security.
Under Section 11 of the Act, a murder is not required to justify a closed-area declaration. However, authorities must establish reasonable grounds involving serious criminal threats and the inability of ordinary policing to restore public safety.
Commissioner Allister Guevarro insists intelligence concerning escalating gang violence justified the decision. But the specific grounds must be presented to Parliament within seven days.
No body cameras? No specialised training?
Robinson-Regis also questioned the apparent absence of body-worn cameras on some deployed officers. Guevarro acknowledged that the Police Service has approximately 100 usable cameras and that not every officer was equipped with one.
Section 21 requires body-worn cameras during special operations as far as available resources permit.
Opposition MP Marvin Gonzales raised an even more troubling allegation: that only First Division officers had received the specialised training, while Second Division officers, from constables to inspectors, were deployed without it.
Sections 5(4), 6 and 7(5) require assigned police and military personnel to be trained in human rights, use of force, community engagement and conflict de-escalation.
If Gonzales’ allegation is substantiated, the deployment of untrained personnel would raise serious questions about compliance with the law. The Commissioner has maintained that officers are trained, but detailed deployment-specific training records have not been publicly established.
The Government must answer.
How many deployed officers completed the required training? Why were officers operating without cameras? What intelligence distinguishes Maloney from Couva? And when will ordinary policing be considered sufficient to lift the restrictions?
The public deserves answers, not political exchanges between the Prime Minister and Opposition MPs.
Maloney deserves protection. So does Couva.
The Government cannot demand obedience to extraordinary laws without demonstrating its own compliance with their safeguards.
The question is no longer simply why Maloney was closed. It is whether the State has applied the law consistently, proportionately and lawfully.