“The Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice has the sit­u­a­tion un­der con­trol... our strate­gic in­ter­ven­tions are yield­ing the de­sired dis­rup­tive re­sults.”

Those were the words of Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Al­lis­ter Gue­var­ro in late 2025 at the tail end of a State of Emer­gency (SoE) that had gripped the na­tion for months.

Gue­var­ro spoke of “pre­ci­sion-guid­ed in­ter­ven­tion” and “proac­tive dis­rup­tion,” while as­sur­ing that the in­tel­li­gence gath­ered would en­sure the coun­try’s safe­ty well in­to the new year.

Mere days ago, the com­mis­sion­er al­so boast­ed that tech­nol­o­gy and “in­no­va­tion” had de­liv­ered a safe Car­ni­val 2026, as we were told that “Op­er­a­tion Se­cure De VIBES” was a re­sound­ing suc­cess.

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, Min­is­ter of Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Roger Alexan­der tout­ed it as the safest Car­ni­val fes­ti­val in 20 years.

Yet, here we are again.

What changed so dra­mat­i­cal­ly in such a short span of time?

Re­cent re­ports point to mul­ti­ple killings, brazen shoot­ings and in­tel­li­gence sug­gest­ing threats to mem­bers of the pro­tec­tive ser­vices and the jus­tice sys­tem.

Those de­vel­op­ments can­not be ig­nored. The Gov­ern­ment has a du­ty to act when cred­i­ble threats emerge.

But act­ing is not the same as plan­ning.

A State of Emer­gency is, by de­sign, an ex­cep­tion­al mea­sure which grants the Ex­ec­u­tive sweep­ing pow­ers be­cause cir­cum­stances are deemed ex­tra­or­di­nary.

It was nev­er meant to be­come a re­cur­ring fea­ture of gov­er­nance.

When a gov­ern­ment in­vokes it re­peat­ed­ly with­in such a short time­frame, we must ask whether we are con­fronting a na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty cri­sis or com­pen­sat­ing for sys­temic weak­ness­es in polic­ing, pros­e­cu­tion and ju­di­cial through­put.

Near­ly a year of emer­gency pow­ers in 2025 af­ford­ed the State ex­pand­ed au­thor­i­ty to de­tain, search and dis­rupt crim­i­nal net­works.

If, af­ter that ex­tend­ed pe­ri­od, key fig­ures could not be suc­cess­ful­ly pros­e­cut­ed, then the prob­lem lies deep­er than in in­tel­li­gence gath­er­ing.

The coun­try needs clar­i­ty.

What is the long-term strat­e­gy? How will in­tel­li­gence be con­vert­ed in­to ad­mis­si­ble ev­i­dence? How will cas­es move ef­fi­cient­ly through the courts? How will com­mu­ni­ties be se­cured with­out re­peat­ed­ly cur­tail­ing civ­il lib­er­ties? And cru­cial­ly, how will the State pre­vent the cy­cle where­by de­tainees are re­leased on­ly to re-en­ter the crim­i­nal land­scape amid un­re­solved cas­es?

There is al­so a mat­ter of cred­i­bil­i­ty.

When the pub­lic is told that the se­cu­ri­ty forces had mat­ters firm­ly in hand, on­ly to see emer­gency pow­ers re­in­stat­ed weeks lat­er, con­fi­dence erodes, and cit­i­zens be­gin to ques­tion not on­ly the strat­e­gy but the nar­ra­tive, since the “safest Car­ni­val in 20 years” is be­ing fol­lowed by an SoE just 20 days lat­er.

None of this di­min­ish­es the very re­al threat posed by or­gan­ised crim­i­nal el­e­ments. The vi­o­lence is re­al. The fear is re­al. The need for de­ci­sive lead­er­ship is re­al.

But de­ci­sive lead­er­ship must al­so be strate­gic lead­er­ship, and nor­mal­is­ing States of Emer­gency does not re­flect pos­i­tive­ly on any of those.

The peo­ple of this na­tion de­serve a plan that works when the lights are on and the sirens are off, not a re­volv­ing door of lock­downs that treat the symp­toms while the dis­ease of crime con­tin­ues to fes­ter.