-Parliament has approved legislation regulating the use of fireworks in Trinidad and Tobago amid the security risks posed by these product legislators agreed were not toys but explosive devices which could create great damage and injury.
Attorney General John Jeremie, who piloted the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2025, also known as the Fireworks Regulation Bill, said the legislation is to amend and regulate the use of fireworks, which have become a part of celebrations in Trinidad and Tobago, but could also be a nuisance and pose threats to life and limbs.
What was once a source of celebration has become over the years a serious public safety concern. Vulnerable citizens, including children, the elderly and those with medical conditions suffer from the excessive noise and destruction. Animals too are affected. Homes and businesses are at risk of catching fire if fireworks land on them.
‘Fireworks pose a grave national security risk. Their explosive components can be repurposed to construct improvised bombs, while their deafening blasts mimic gunfire so closely that they may mask illegal use of firearms, and there have been a number of occasions where this has been done,’ Jeremie said.
The legislation,which received the support of the opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) legislators, also details the exceptions for use of fireworks without a permit, and the restrictions of the use of fireworks.
Jeremie said the minister responsible for national security is given the power to make regulations to give effect to the new sections that will regulate the fireworks industry, except the sections dealing with the fixed penalty.
He told legislators that work on the bill began in 2020 when the Law Reform Commission reviewed the laws governing fireworks. A policy paper was produced, followed by recommendations which were used to create the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which was put out for public comment. This input was used to provide recommendations for the current legislation.
The legislation provides the requirement for people to notify the Fire Service about the intended use of fireworks 14 days in advance of when they plan to use it.It also provides the restrictions on people’s use of fireworks as it relates to the discharge on land, whether such discharge creates a danger or nuisance and the supervision of children when discharging toy fireworks.
The bill provides for the restriction on the use of fireworks in specified areas, within a half mile radius of a public hospital, a private hospital, an airport, a zoo, a registered animal shelter, a farm where animals are reared, a Forest Reserve and a National Park.
But it states that a person is not required to obtain a permit for the discharge of fireworks on specified days and that a person is allowed to discharge fireworks on a public holiday between the hours of 8.00 to 9.00 pm(local time) of that same day; and December 31 between the hours of 11.30 pm-12.30 am the next day.
The bill provides for a fixed penalty notice to be issued by a police officer where an offence is committed andalso provides for the payment of the fixed penalty notice.
It also provides for a person to file a notice to contest his fixed penalty notice to the District Criminal and Traffic Court.
Opposition legislator, Symon De Nobriga said the opposition supported the bill and that the the fixed penalty system modernised enforcement.
He suggested that the penalty for paying the ticket should be increased from 14 to 28 days, to make it less onerous,urging the government to reinstate key oversight agencies – the Environmental Management Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority and the municipal corporations – to aid in oversight and enforcement.
De Nobriga said there needed to be a robust public education programme so that people would understand the conditions under which fireworks could be discharged.
De Nobriga said the bill did not do enough to account for the people who would not follow the law, thinking it did not apply to them or they would not get caught and face consequences.
He said while he approved of the admittance of video evidence, he did not know how effective this evidence would be.
‘There is nothing here that doesn’t allow for altering of videos, AI or videos taken on some other day purporting to be another day. Also in the inclusion, it shifts the responsibility from the state to the citizens to monitor themselves, putting it in the hands of the citizens to say ‘my neighbour or the person up the street is doing this, here is a video which may or may not be true.”