It is clear from the results reported so far that immediate rewards are accruing from the declaration of the state of emergency by the Government. A dragnet of over 300 arrests, inclusive of alleged gang members and leaders, and the seizure of guns and ammunition amount to a good initial haul. As the emergency continues, the expectation must be that additional larger numbers of wanted people and their weapons of criminal destruction will be captured. In this respect, the security officers carrying out the emergency regulations must be praised for being committed to doing a good job for the national community.
However, the point expressed by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan that a distinction has to be made between apprehension by the security forces and the judicial process of finding people guilty of criminal offences and sentencing them is well taken. Undoubtedly, that distinction has to be made and so should it always be to ensure the continuity of justice in a society such as ours. However, it cannot be that eventual conviction of alleged criminal activity does not come into reckoning in eventually making a determination of the success or otherwise of the calling of the state of emergency.
Surely, while the separation has to be made between the enforcement of the emergency and the conviction of people, it cannot be that large numbers of people are simply roped in during a period of emergency and then it is found that there was no good reason for such people being deprived of their liberty. And this is remembering that during this period of emergency the law enforcement officers are required to have little justification for arresting and detaining people. If when the time comes for a full assessment of the emergency the number of convictions in relation to total arrests is not taken into consideration, then the Government would have simply carried out a public relations exercise that would have caused considerable distress to the national community without realising lasting rewards in return.
But we maintain that "so far so good": some people believed to have been involved in crime and their weapons have been taken out of circulation and there is a halt, even if temporarily, to the madness. We cannot however not note the measure of confusion and doublespeak that has surrounded the declaration and the carrying out of the orders. The Prime Minister first makes the announcement even before the President exercises his authority, and does so without details of the orders; the highly paid Commissioner of Police and his deputy are out of the country; when the CoP returns he makes statements which are contradictory to the actual operationalisation of the order; a day or two before the declaration is made, senior Minister Roodal Moonilal says there is no need for such a move, and senior attorneys are finding conflicts between what the law is intended to do and the actual legal stipulations.
While the circumstances may have been extremely difficult, it is clear that the many voices that have spoken on behalf of the Government in this matter have caused conflicting messages to be sent. Given the circumstances of the decision and implementation of the state of emergency, such conflicting messages may be excusable for the first few days, but not for much longer. Of more importance than its communication is the need for the Government to develop an implementable plan to cope with the expected resumption of criminal activity after the expiration of the emergency measures. Having a plan to follow-through on the period of emergency will also be counted in deciding whether it was worth it or not.