When crime becomes ‘us against them’

As the latest State of Emergency (SoE) comes to an end, one question matters most: did it make ordinary citizens feel safer? For many people, the answer is yes. Daily life continued without significant disruption while the pressure placed on gangs and criminal networks gave citizens a sense of relief.

The challenge now is to ensure that this feeling of safety does not disappear with the emergency powers. Government has already signalled that it intends to bring the ZOSO Bill back to Parliament. That proposal should not be judged simply according to which party supports or opposes it. It should be considered in light of what the SoE achieved and whether it can help the State continue putting pressure on gangs, recovering illegal weapons and protecting law-abiding citizens.

As much as there was some opposition to the SoE, we need to acknowledge that it has produced measurable results. According to figures presented in Parliament by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander, during the first 191 days of the SoE the protective services conducted 13,108 operations, made 5,767 arrests and recovered 318 firearms and 6,414 rounds of ammunition.

Of the 573 people detained under preventive detention orders, 240 were charged. Separately, reported serious crimes declined by 14.1 per cent between January 1 and September 10, compared with the same period in 2025. Us law-abiding citizens carried on with our lives. For me, every illegal gun removed meant one less weapon available to threaten a family.

This is why the proposed ZOSO framework deserves serious consideration. It would allow the State to concentrate police and army resources in clearly defined areas where gang warfare and violent crime are rampant. Joint operations could make it harder for gangs to operate freely. Instead of conducting occasional raids and then withdrawing, our protective services could maintain pressure, gather intelligence and work to dismantle criminal networks.

While ZOSO will not solve every aspect of crime, surely it can help restore order in communities where gangs have been allowed to operate with too much freedom. It will also offer some amount of protection to law-abiding residents in those areas. I am not saying that we should ignore the objections to the SoE and ZOSO. But I do believe that the rights of law-abiding citizens must be considered. For years, families in crime-affected communities have been afraid to leave their homes, feared becoming the next victim of robbery, home invasion or murder. Don’t they deserve a right to safety and security also?

The sad reality in T&T is that politics and race interfere with attempts to address crime in this country.

First, if we are honest, we will acknowledge that violent crime is not spread evenly across T&T. In 2024, the Northern, Port-of-Spain, North Eastern and Eastern Police Divisions recorded 339 of the country’s 625 murders—54.2 per cent of the national total. TTPS figures also showed that Afro-Trinidadians accounted for 65 per cent of murder victims in 2023, although they represented 34.2 per cent of the population in the 2011 Census. Among victims aged 30 and under, 136 were Afro-Trinidadian, compared with 23 Indo-Trinidadians.

These figures do not mean that race causes crime but they show that Afro-Trinidadian communities have been badly affected by crime and that many people living there are law-abiding citizens who are also victims.

Second, politics has helped to create the conditions in which crime thrives. Several communities identified as crime hotspots are in constituencies regarded as safe seats. When votes are virtually guaranteed, elected representatives face little pressure to deliver. Schools continue to fail, employment opportunities remain limited and youth programmes appear and disappear while gangs become more influential.

We cannot say that these MPs did not know what was happening. The same communities have been identified as crime hotspots for years yet too little was done before gangs became firmly established. What sustained plans did these MPs initiate and implement before the situation reached this point? Political loyalty should have brought proper representation and a safe seat should mean that the citizens there are well taken care of, not ignored.

But here is the biggest problem: any intervention in predominantly Afro-Trinidadian communities by a UNC Government will be seen as one race targeting another. I feel criminals in T&T must be very happy that crime fighting has become an “us against them” issue. Because while ordinary citizens are spending money on security cameras and burglar proofing, changing their routines and scared to wear their jewellery, criminals must feel free to go about their business.

The truth is we will never get a handle on crime if race is used to shield criminals or prevent the State from acting. Government must apply the law fairly and protect innocent residents but the Opposition and community leaders must also stop turning every intervention into a racial battle.

Until crime becomes a truly national issue we will continue to have a big problem in this country. So yes, we definitely need to take a zero-tolerance approach to crime and we need our leaders to get on the same page. Our safety must come before race and party politics.