Experts weigh in on parade decision

PETER CHRISTOPHER

Senior Multimedia Reporter

[email protected]

The Government’s decision to cancel this year’s Independence Day parade has sparked renewed debate, with criminologist Dr Darius Figuera warning that it points to the possibility of grave national security threats.

Figuera noted the cancellation came just days after Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro declared that the threat which prompted the declaration of a State of Emergency (SoE) had been neutralised.

“The announcement suggests there is another, more serious concern for law enforcement officials,” he told the Sunday Guardian yesterday.

“Are there then a series of threats that we don’t know about? That is what came to my mind immediately, because we were told that the threat that forced them to call a SoE has been neutralised. What threat exists that is so potent that it can attack the parade and present a grave threat to the entire apparatus of the state collected in one place to view the parade?

“That means, if there is such a threat, it is even more potent than the one that was supposedly neutralised that resulted in the SoE,” Figuera said.

He added: “If so, where is that threat and what is its origin? Because what you are talking about now is a threat that has the capacity to strike as a terrorist attack at an event like the Independence Day parade. So it raises many grave questions.”

Former Police Commissioner Gary Griffith, however, said he could not second-guess the decision, stressing that security officials may have access to intelligence not available to the wider public.

“The law enforcement authorities would have information that others may not have, and if they are stating that there is a security concern that can be a risk to national security for the parade, it is difficult for me or anyone to challenge it, because they will have information we do not have,” said Griffith, who also served as National Security Minister under the People’s Partnership administration.

He added: “I’m not going to get into the politics. The politicians on either side will defend it or condemn it. My take is from another law enforcement perspective: if the agencies have stated that there’s a clear and present danger based on intelligence and it has been recommended to the State, the State is left with no other choice.”

Griffith also felt the Government handled the announcement more appropriately than the rollout of the State of Emergency, where he argued too much sensitive information had been shared.

“It may very well be something on a need-to-know basis that they do not want the public to be aware of, which, again, I think is the right approach. I was concerned when the Commissioner previously said too much by speaking about the prisons and people calling hits. If this time around that is not being done, I think that is appropriate, because it is on a need-to-know basis,” Griffith said.

Political analyst Dr Indira Rampersad, however, suggested that the cancellation may have had more to do with economics than national security.

“Maybe they’re not in a position to divulge the safety issues—I do not know with regard to that. But it would make sense in an economic sense, because it does seem there is an issue with the cash flow. They did inherit an economy in shambles, as we know. They’re trying to make ends meet with whatever available funds they have, so I think it’s a cost-cutting measure,” Rampersad said.

She added: “Generally, I think it is a cost-cutting measure. I’m not sure of the connections with the security issue because I do not have full information. But perhaps a breakdown of the cost of hosting the parade might help the public better understand the decision.”

Questions sent to Commissioner Guevarro via WhatsApp yesterday went unanswered up to press time.