Letter of the Day | Cops must account for SOE detentions

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Public Defender Arlene Harrison Henry recently reported to a parliamentary committee on the appalling conditions under which detainees are being kept in custody in terms of the state of public emergency (SOE) in St James. The public defender has also reported on the manner in which residents are being detained, allegedly without any substantial evidence or justifiable basis.

I wish to commend the public defender for carrying out her duty in such a professional manner and for displaying the moral courage expected of public officials.

The PD's report should have been accepted and an immediate call made on the Government to summon those charged with the operational responsibility of the SOE in St James to respond to the allegations immediately. When the SOE was declared, we were led to believe that in terms of the SOE regulations, the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) would be taking the lead role, assisted by the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). In other words, the command of the SOE operations and their planning and execution would be vested in the JDF. This state of emergency is, of course, no different from any other in Jamaica's history.

Given the awesome powers granted to the State under an SOE, one would have hoped that the heads of our security forces would have given very serious thought to the imposition of an SOE before the Government regarded it as necessary.

Of course, we hope it was not the Government telling the heads of the security forces that it wished to impose a state of emergency because that would be putting the cart before the horse. In any event, there cannot be any self-respecting professional head of security who would allow a government to dictate the nature of a security operation!

In effect, the security heads would have made their recommendations to Government, which would have agreed to the SOE's implementation and requested at least the concept of the operation.

Concerns and recommendations

No doubt, the Government would have raised concerns about the citizens' rights, and, hopefully, the security chiefs would have addressed such concerns in developing their plan and operational orders. I find it puzzling, and, indeed, appalling, that the PD's report found that there was doubt, if not confusion, as to who was responsible for what or who was in command. If this is accurate, then both the chief of the defence staff and the commissioner of police have some explaining to do.

Fundamental to any successful military operation is the factor of command relationships, and if there was a failure in this regard, there was certainly going to be a failure of the overall operation or unacceptable outcomes such as reported on by the PD.

The 2010 Tivoli military debacle highlighted this command- relationship weakness not only between the JDF and the JCF, but also within the JDF's own units regarding the use of mortars in that operation, for example. One hopes that the JDF would have sought to correct this weakness by now.

I believe that the parliamentary committee's wish to hear from detainees regarding their treatment is tantamount to questioning the accuracy and credibility of the PD's report. However, I doubt whether that's the case, and would, therefore, suggest that the committee urgently address the wrongs perpetrated against those citizens by having the responsible commanders before them to account for their actions.

In addition, a body should be appointed to oversee the nature and conduct of SOEs, with a particular focus on detainees and the conditions under which they are being held.

ALLAN DOUGLAS

Retired JDF Colonel