The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) wishes to address public commentary surrounding the arrest of two individuals during the Labour Day procession in Fyzabad on June 19, 2026. The facts of this matter are straightforward, and the actions of officers were grounded firmly in the Summary Offences Act, Chap. 11:02, and in the duty of the TTPS to preserve public order, public safety, and the sanctity of the annual Labour Day procession.
Trade Union Movement Received Lawful Permission
The Trade Union movement applied for and received the requisite permission to stage their annual Labour Day street procession in accordance with:
- Section 112 — No person may organise, lead or take part in any public march unless a permit has been issued by the Commissioner of Police.
- Section 113 — Applications must be made in writing, within the statutory timeframe.
- Section 114 — The Commissioner may grant or refuse a permit based on public safety and public order considerations.
The Trade Union movement complied fully with these legal requirements. Their procession was therefore lawful, authorised, and protected under the permit issued.
Unauthorised Group Attempted to Join the Procession
A social activist and a small group of followers, who were not members of the Trade Union movement, attempted to join the procession.
Police officers:
- Verified with the Trade Union organisers that the group was not part of the authorised procession.
- Spoke directly with the leader of the activist group and explained that:
- They were not covered under the Trade Union’s permit.
- Their participation would constitute a separate public march, requiring its own permit under the law.
- Their actions could jeopardise the lawful holding of the Labour Day procession, which the TTPS is obligated to safeguard.
Despite this clear explanation, the group proceeded to form and participate in an unauthorised procession at the rear of the lawful march.
Legal Basis for Police Action
Under the Summary Offences Act:
- Section 116(1) empowers a police officer (Sergeant or above) to require the leader of an unlawful march to call upon it to disperse.
- Section 116(2) makes it an offence for the leader to refuse or fail to do so.
- Section 116(4) makes it an offence for any person present at such a march to fail to disperse when lawfully instructed.
The leader of the activist group refused to call on the unlawful procession to disperse. Officers therefore acted immediately and lawfully to prevent escalation and protect the integrity of the authorised event.
High Court Judgment Clarifying the Law
The TTPS also draws attention to the recent High Court judgment in Walker v. Attorney General, CV2023-00302 delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim, which provides authoritative clarification on the distinction between public meetings and public marches.
Justice Rahim held that:
- A public meeting requires notice, not permission.
- The Commissioner of Police may prohibit a meeting based on statutory criteria, but no permit is required for a meeting.
- A public march, however, is fundamentally different:
- There is a “clear and unambiguous prohibition” against public marches unless permission is granted.
- Permission must be sought and granted before a march can lawfully take place.
This judgment confirms that any group wishing to participate in a public march must have a permit, and that attaching an unauthorised procession to a lawful one is a breach of the Act.
The activist group in question did not give notice of a meeting, nor did they apply for or receive a permit for a march. Their actions therefore fell squarely within the statutory definition of an unlawful public march.
Charges Laid
Alyssa Phillip, the social activist, was subsequently charged with:
- Being a leader of a march and failing to call on such march to disperse.
- Disorderly behaviour.
- Resisting arrest.
Camille Caresquero, a participant in the illegal procession, was also charged with:
- Being present at a march and failing to disperse.
- Obstructing a police officer.
- Resisting arrest.
Why Enforcement Was Necessary
The Labour Day procession is a historic national event and the TTPS has a statutory responsibility to:
- Maintain public order.
- Protect participants and bystanders.
- Ensure that lawful events are not hijacked or disrupted.
- Prevent unauthorised groups from attaching themselves to permitted marches.
- Uphold the conditions of permits issued under the law.
Allowing an unpermitted procession to merge with a lawful one would have undermined the event, created security risks, and violated the legal framework governing public marches.
Statement from the Commissioner of Police
“The TTPS respects the rights of all citizens to assemble and express their views. However, these rights must be exercised within the framework of the law. Officers acted with restraint, clarity, and professionalism. It is regrettable that enforcement became necessary, but the sanctity of the Labour Day procession should never be compromised by persons seeking to attach unrelated agendas to a permitted national event.”
Commitment to Public Confidence
The TTPS remains committed to:
- Upholding constitutional rights.
- Enforcing the law without fear or favour.
- Ensuring national events proceed safely.
- Engaging the public respectfully and transparently.
Groups wishing to hold public marches are encouraged to follow the lawful permit process to avoid similar incidents.