It is with grave concern that I respond to the recent remarks made by Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro, at his inaugural news conference, regarding the internal investigation into Deputy Commissioner of Police Suzette Martin.
The Commissioner鈥檚 statement is riddled with evasive, non-committal language that projects neither confidence nor integrity. His repeated assurances of 鈥渢ransparency鈥 are undermined by vagueness, strategic ambiguity, and what can only be described as rhetorical abdication of responsibility. This is not transparency. It is obfuscation masquerading as accountability.
On his first day in office, Commissioner Guevarro received a serious allegation from firearms dealer Brent Thomas鈥攁n individual at the centre of an international legal controversy implicating the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service in potentially unlawful cross-border actions.
Yet rather than address this matter with clarity, urgency or moral leadership, the Commissioner chose to engage in institutional hedging. He repeatedly distanced himself from the situation, insisting disciplinary action 鈥渓ies solely with the Police Service Commission (PolSC)鈥 under Section 123 of the Constitution.
That is legally correct. But legally correct is not good enough. A commissioner of police must not be reduced to a memo courier. Leadership demands more than administrative compliance; it demands moral clarity and the willingness to act. He had a duty to publicly affirm his expectations of integrity, signal the seriousness of the allegations, and recommend that the Deputy Commissioner be placed on leave pending the -investigation.
More troubling still is the language used to describe the allegation itself. Commissioner Guevarro said 鈥渃ertain acts were carried out鈥 against Thomas, who 鈥渇elt it was bordering on criminal conduct鈥. That language is disturbingly euphemistic. It reframes a potentially criminal abuse of police power as a matter of subjective perception. It trivialises the issue and casts doubt upon the complainant while shielding the institution from reputational damage.
This is precisely the kind of rhetorical framing that erodes public trust. The people of Trinidad and Tobago deserve better. We are not asking for prejudgment. We are asking for candour.
If the allegations are serious enough to involve a Deputy -Commissioner and require a dedicated investigative team led by an Assistant Commissioner, then they are serious enough for the public to be told the nature of the complaint.
Transparency is not a slogan; it is a practice. One does not become transparent simply by saying 鈥渨e are transparent鈥.
Moreover, the Commissioner failed to provide any timeline for the investigation or any indication of how progress will be reported. This allows the TTPS to fall into the familiar pattern of 鈥渁ctive investigations鈥 that never reach conclusion. Public accountability demands procedural clarity and time-bound commitments.
Commissioner Guevarro speaks of a 鈥渟ocial contract鈥 between the police and the public. But a contract implies mutual obligation. The public cannot uphold its end鈥攕upport and cooperation鈥攊f the police leadership cannot uphold theirs鈥攖ruthfulness and moral courage. Rebuilding trust in a damaged institution requires forthrightness, not legalistic retreat.
I urge the Commissioner to reflect carefully on his language. A nation will not be reassured by rhetorical opacity. The office he holds is not simply administrative鈥攊t is symbolic. Every word he utters sets the tone for the culture of the entire force.
At a time of institutional crisis, the people of this republic do not need a spokesperson for the system. We need a leader.