Senior Counsel Larry N. Lalla SC has raised serious questions about the legality, justification and possible political motivations behind the Government’s decision to declare the Maloney Buildings Housing Development a closed area under the Special Operations Act, 2026.
In a strongly worded Facebook statement on Thursday, November 12, Lalla questioned whether the authorities had met the legal threshold required to impose extraordinary restrictions on an entire community.
His intervention follows a November 11 town hall meeting in Maloney, where, according to Lalla, a resident questioned police officers about the justification for the operation. A police officer reportedly cited “a shooting” as the reason.
For Lalla, that explanation raises a fundamental legal concern.
“A solitary shooting DOES NOT allow the jump from ordinary policing….to the use of the oppressive Special Operations Act,” he argued, warning that the legislation restricts the constitutional rights of an entire community.
Under Section 11 of the Act, the President may declare an area closed where there are reasonable grounds to believe public safety is threatened by escalating violent crime, illegal firearms or gang intimidation, and where ordinary law enforcement measures are unable to maintain or restore public safety.
Lalla contends that an isolated shooting, however serious, cannot automatically justify such an extraordinary intervention.
He further questioned whether Maloney had experienced the escalation in criminal activity contemplated by the legislation.
However, Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro has defended the operation, stating at a November 11 press conference that police intelligence identified escalating gang violence, threats to innocent residents and circumstances that ordinary policing had failed to resolve.
Guevarro maintained that the evidence and intelligence satisfied the statutory requirements for invoking the Act.
The competing positions now raise a critical question: What specific evidence was presented to establish that ordinary policing was no longer sufficient in Maloney?
Lalla also drew a controversial comparison with the Blue Waters/Hadeed detention matter, questioning whether the Government was repeating what he characterised as an earlier abuse of state power.
He asked whether the alleged abuse was now being extended from three individuals to an entire community.
Going further, Lalla questioned why Maloney was selected and whether the operation might serve as a political distraction from other controversies, including the David Lee matter and circulating allegations concerning Trinidad and Tobago’s involvement in United States maritime operations.
These suggestions remain speculative, with no evidence presented establishing that the Maloney operation was politically motivated.
Nevertheless, Lalla raised another troubling possibility: whether the authorities anticipated limited national sympathy for Maloney residents.
The legal controversy also places renewed attention on Section 11(2), which requires the President, within seven days of making a closed-area order, to deliver to the Speaker of the House of Representatives a statement setting out the specific grounds for the decision.
President Christine Carla Kangaloo signed the declaration on November 10, through Legal Notice No. 847, while Legal Notice No. 848 separately imposed a nightly curfew from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.
The declaration is not itself a constitutional state of emergency, although it authorises significant restrictions on movement and special policing measures.
For Lalla, the issue extends beyond whether security forces should respond decisively to criminal violence. It concerns the justification for using extraordinary statutory powers against an entire residential community.
“The government and its commissioner have a duty to provide us with a proper explanation,” he insisted.
His statement concluded with a warning that extends far beyond Maloney:
“Today is Maloney….will your community will be used as the next distraction?”
As the Government defends the operation as necessary to protect innocent lives, Lalla’s intervention places the burden of transparency and legal accountability firmly in the national spotlight.
The central question remains whether the extraordinary restrictions are supported by the specific evidence and legal conditions Parliament established, or whether their use risks creating a precedent in which exceptional policing powers become an increasingly routine response to crime.