Former police commissioner Gary Griffith on Saturday accused the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) of selectively enforcing the law and relying on ‘colonial-era’ legislation to justify the arrest of activist Alyssa Phillip and her mother during a Labour Day procession in Fyzabad on Friday.
Phillip, who has been leading a series of protests calling for justice in the January police-involved shooting death of Joshua Samaroo, and her mother, Camille Caresquero, were detained during the annual Labour Day march and subsequently charged by police.
The TTPS has defended the arrests, saying in a statement on Saturday that Phillip and a small group accompanying her were not part of the authorised procession and had attempted to participate in what police described as an unlawful march.
In a lengthy statement also released on Saturday, Griffith said the police service was relying on ‘the narrowest possible reading of the law’ while ignoring ‘common sense, decades of precedent, the nature of Labour Day, and the very purpose for which permission for public marches is required in the first place.’
‘The arrest of Alyssa Phillip and her mother on Labour Day is a slap in the face to the post-colonial struggle of every citizen,’ Griffith said.
He argued that the group had not created any additional burden for law enforcement since they joined the existing Labour Day march along the same route where police officers were already deployed and traffic arrangements were already in place.
‘So how exactly did this small group endanger public safety? How did they affect traffic? How did they threaten national security? How did they disrupt the march? How did they place the public at risk?
‘The answer is simple: they did not,’ Griffith said.
The former police commissioner questioned why Phillip’s group had been singled out, noting that Labour Day marches have traditionally included multiple organisations, activists and members of the public participating under a single umbrella.
‘So the real question is this: why Alyssa Phillip?’ he said.
‘That is why this incident appears to be selective enforcement. That is why it appears to be profiling. That is why it appears to be pettiness. That is why it appears to be an attempt by those in authority to show, ‘I am the big boy, and I will show you who is boss.”
Griffith said the police service’s claim that the arrests were necessary to protect the ‘sanctity’ of the Labour Day procession was inconsistent with the history of the event.
‘Labour Day was born out of struggle, protest, resistance, workers’ rights and the fight against oppression. To arrest citizens who sought to peacefully participate in a Labour Day march, and then claim that this was done to protect the sanctity of Labour Day, is to insult the very history of the event,’ he said.
Griffith also criticised what he described as the continued use of outdated public order laws, arguing that police officers should exercise discretion when dealing with peaceful demonstrations.
‘The TTPS cannot continue to use outdated, colonial-style laws as tools to suppress citizens,’ he said.
Drawing on his own experience as commissioner of police, Griffith recalled a Black Lives Matter protest outside the United States Embassy that proceeded without the required approval.
‘Instead, I walked among them. I listened to their concerns. I engaged them respectfully. I assured them that what had taken place in the United States would not be allowed to happen here. The matter was defused because people were treated with respect.
‘That is leadership,’ he said.
Griffith said the charges of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct would ultimately be matters for the courts, but maintained that the justification for treating Phillip’s participation in the Labour Day event as an unlawful march was ‘weak, selective and dangerous’.
He called on the TTPS to explain why Phillip’s group was targeted and whether every other organisation, union, political figure, non-governmental organisation and individual participating in the Labour Day procession had obtained separate permission from the Commissioner of Police.
‘If they did not, then this was selective enforcement.
‘And selective enforcement is injustice,’ Griffith said.
According to the TTPS, Phillip was charged with being a leader of a march and failing to call on it to disperse, disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest. Caresquero was charged with being present at a march and failing to disperse, obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest.
Police have maintained that officers acted lawfully under the Summary Offences Act after Phillip allegedly refused instructions to disperse from what the TTPS described as an unauthorised procession attached to the permitted Labour Day march.