Movement in closed areas: What the SOB means for residents

Jesse Ramdeo

Se­nior Re­porter

[email protected]

Move­ment in­to and out of des­ig­nat­ed com­mu­ni­ties could be­come sub­ject to a per­mit sys­tem if an area is de­clared a “closed area” un­der Gov­ern­ment’s new Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Bill, 2026.

The bill was passed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives short­ly af­ter mid­night on Sat­ur­day and is now head­ed to the Sen­ate. It is in­tend­ed to re­place the Gov­ern­ment’s de­feat­ed Zones of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions (ZOSO) Bill.

The leg­is­la­tion es­tab­lish­es sev­en polic­ing dis­tricts across Trinidad and To­ba­go and cre­ates a le­gal frame­work for spe­cial op­er­a­tions by law en­force­ment tar­get­ing crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty.

But what does it mean for res­i­dents and oth­ers who need to trav­el through an area once it is des­ig­nat­ed a closed area?

Un­der Clause 11, the Pres­i­dent may, by Or­der sub­ject to neg­a­tive res­o­lu­tion of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, de­clare an area with­in a polic­ing dis­trict a closed area.

Such a de­c­la­ra­tion can be made where pub­lic safe­ty and peace are threat­ened by es­ca­lat­ing vi­o­lent crime, homi­cides, shoot­ings, kid­nap­pings, gang-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty, the preva­lence of il­le­gal firearms, am­mu­ni­tion, weapons or ex­plo­sives, or where a gang ex­er­cis­es con­trol over or in­tim­i­dates a com­mu­ni­ty.

The Pres­i­dent must al­so be sat­is­fied that or­di­nary law en­force­ment mea­sures are in­suf­fi­cient to re­store pub­lic safe­ty and peace.

Once an area is de­clared closed, the Head of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions may en­force the clo­sure through bar­ri­ers, road­blocks or oth­er mea­sures.

Clause 12 states that no per­son may en­ter or leave a closed area with­out a per­mit.

Ex­emp­tions ap­ply to spec­i­fied pub­lic of­fi­cials, the Head of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions and the Head of Mil­i­tary As­sis­tance re­spon­si­ble for the area, as well as po­lice of­fi­cers and De­fence Force per­son­nel trav­el­ling to, from, or while per­form­ing their du­ties.

Per­mits may be is­sued by the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice, the Chief of De­fence Staff, the Head of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions, or the Head of Mil­i­tary As­sis­tance re­spon­si­ble for the area.

A per­mit may spec­i­fy the times a per­son is per­mit­ted to en­ter or leave and set con­di­tions or re­stric­tions gov­ern­ing that move­ment.

The bill al­so au­tho­ris­es the CoP and oth­er des­ig­nat­ed of­fi­cials to sus­pend or can­cel per­mits.

Dur­ing de­bate on the leg­is­la­tion, De­fence Min­is­ter Wayne Sturge said res­i­dents of com­mu­ni­ties des­ig­nat­ed as closed ar­eas would be able to ap­ply for per­mits elec­tron­i­cal­ly, in­clud­ing through What­sApp.

The bill does not cre­ate a spe­cif­ic ex­emp­tion for peo­ple mere­ly trav­el­ling through a closed area.

In­stead, Clause 12 es­tab­lish­es the gen­er­al rule that no per­son may en­ter or leave a closed area with­out a per­mit, un­less they fall with­in one of the list­ed ex­emp­tions.

As writ­ten, this could mean that some­one whose route re­quires them to pass through a closed area may need per­mis­sion to do so.

The con­di­tions at­tached to a per­mit could de­ter­mine when and un­der what cir­cum­stances such move­ment is al­lowed.

Re­stric­tions may be­come even more spe­cif­ic.

Un­der Clause 13, the Head of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions may es­tab­lish a cor­don around or with­in a closed area us­ing bar­ri­ers, road­blocks or oth­er mea­sures.

No­tice of the cor­don must be pub­lished and dis­played in con­spic­u­ous lo­ca­tions. The no­tice must iden­ti­fy the bound­aries of the cor­don and out­line the re­quire­ments ap­plic­a­ble to per­sons with­in, en­ter­ing or leav­ing the area.

Any­one not specif­i­cal­ly ex­empt­ed un­der the leg­is­la­tion would re­quire a per­mit to en­ter or leave the area with­in the cor­don.

As with closed ar­eas, those per­mits may be is­sued, sus­pend­ed or can­celled by au­tho­rised of­fi­cials.

A fur­ther lay­er of re­stric­tions can al­so be im­posed.

Un­der Clause 14, the Pres­i­dent may im­pose a cur­few in a closed area by Or­der, sub­ject to neg­a­tive res­o­lu­tion of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

The cur­few may re­quire peo­ple with­in the area to re­main on their premis­es dur­ing spec­i­fied hours.

How­ev­er, per­mits may be is­sued al­low­ing in­di­vid­u­als to be out­side their premis­es dur­ing re­strict­ed hours, sub­ject to con­di­tions and lim­i­ta­tions.

The bill gives au­thor­i­ties the pow­er to es­tab­lish bar­ri­ers and road­blocks as part of a clo­sure or cor­don.

Per­sons at­tempt­ing to en­ter or leave a closed area would there­fore be sub­ject to the re­quire­ments of the rel­e­vant or­der, cor­don and per­mit sys­tem.

A per­son who en­ters or leaves a closed area with­out the re­quired per­mit, or breach­es a per­mit con­di­tion, com­mits an of­fence. The penal­ty is a fine of up to $50,000 and im­pris­on­ment for up to one year up­on sum­ma­ry con­vic­tion.

The same penal­ty ap­plies to breach­es in­volv­ing cor­dons and vi­o­la­tions of cur­few or­ders or per­mit con­di­tions.

The leg­is­la­tion grants po­lice en­hanced pow­ers dur­ing spe­cial op­er­a­tions.

Un­der Clause 15, a po­lice of­fi­cer may search a place, ve­hi­cle or per­son with­out a war­rant if there is rea­son­able sus­pi­cion that an of­fence is be­ing com­mit­ted, has been com­mit­ted, or is about to be com­mit­ted.

Po­lice may al­so seize ve­hi­cles, ar­ti­cles or doc­u­ments that may as­sist in pre­vent­ing or con­trol­ling pub­lic dis­or­der or that may be of sub­stan­tial val­ue to an in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

How­ev­er, the bill specif­i­cal­ly pro­hibits the seizure of tools used in a law­ful trade or busi­ness and ma­te­ri­als pro­tect­ed by le­gal pro­fes­sion­al priv­i­lege.

Au­thor­i­ties must com­pile a list of seized items and pro­vide a re­ceipt to the own­er or per­son in pos­ses­sion of the prop­er­ty.

The bill es­tab­lish­es a thresh­old for ar­rest and de­ten­tion.

Un­der Clause 17, a per­son may not be ar­rest­ed or de­tained dur­ing a spe­cial op­er­a­tion in a closed area un­less the Head of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions is sat­is­fied there are rea­son­able grounds to sus­pect that the in­di­vid­ual has com­mit­ted, is com­mit­ting, or is about to com­mit an of­fence.

The per­son must be in­formed of the rea­son for the ar­rest or de­ten­tion and brought be­fore a mag­is­trate as soon as rea­son­ably prac­ti­ca­ble.

A mag­is­trate may au­tho­rise de­ten­tion for up to 48 hours, af­ter which the per­son must be brought be­fore a High Court judge.

The leg­is­la­tion al­so pro­vides for im­me­di­ate re­lease where a mag­is­trate or judge is not sat­is­fied that con­tin­ued de­ten­tion is jus­ti­fied.

The bill re­quires, as far as pos­si­ble and sub­ject to avail­able re­sources, that po­lice and De­fence Force per­son­nel use body-worn cam­eras dur­ing spe­cial op­er­a­tions in closed ar­eas.

Footage may be ac­cessed by over­sight and in­ves­tiga­tive bod­ies, in­clud­ing the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion, Po­lice Com­plaints Au­thor­i­ty, in­ter­nal po­lice in­ves­tiga­tive units, the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions and the Om­buds­man.

The leg­is­la­tion al­so re­quires weapons and am­mu­ni­tion as­signed to po­lice and De­fence Force per­son­nel in­volved in spe­cial op­er­a­tions to be reg­is­tered with the Trinidad and To­ba­go Foren­sic Sci­ence Cen­tre, in­clud­ing bal­lis­tic sig­na­tures, un­less oth­er­wise de­ter­mined by the rel­e­vant au­thor­i­ties.

The bill cre­ates a frame­work un­der which a com­mu­ni­ty can first be des­ig­nat­ed a closed area, af­ter which au­thor­i­ties may use bar­ri­ers, road­blocks and oth­er mea­sures to reg­u­late move­ment.

For most res­i­dents and mem­bers of the pub­lic, en­ter­ing or leav­ing such an area would gen­er­al­ly re­quire a per­mit.

A sep­a­rate cor­don could im­pose ad­di­tion­al re­stric­tions with­in part of the closed area, while a cur­few could pre­vent peo­ple from leav­ing their premis­es dur­ing spec­i­fied hours un­less au­tho­rised.

The leg­is­la­tion does not nec­es­sar­i­ly mean roads are au­to­mat­i­cal­ly closed to every­one. Rather, it es­tab­lish­es a con­trolled-ac­cess sys­tem un­der which move­ment may con­tin­ue where au­tho­rised by per­mit and sub­ject to con­di­tions im­posed by au­thor­i­ties.

The bill pro­vides for per­mits to be is­sued elec­tron­i­cal­ly, and De­fence Min­is­ter Wayne Sturge said res­i­dents could ap­ply through What­sApp and oth­er elec­tron­ic chan­nels.

Guardian Me­dia has sub­mit­ted ques­tions to Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Roger Alexan­der and Sturge seek­ing clar­i­fi­ca­tion on how the sys­tem would op­er­ate in prac­tice, in­clud­ing:

How would res­i­dents ap­ply for per­mits?

Would per­mits be valid for a sin­gle trip or a spec­i­fied pe­ri­od?

Would per­sons mere­ly pass­ing through a closed area re­quire per­mits?

What hap­pens if some­one is in­side an area when a clo­sure or cor­don is im­posed?

How would per­mits be ver­i­fied at check­points?

What hap­pens if a per­son’s phone is dead or they can­not ac­cess their elec­tron­ic per­mit?

Could some­one leave with­out a per­mit in an emer­gency, such as a med­ical emer­gency or fire?

Op­po­si­tion MP and for­mer prime min­is­ter Stu­art Young has con­demned the Gov­ern­ment’s Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Bill, 2026, ar­gu­ing that pro­vi­sions reg­u­lat­ing move­ment with­in des­ig­nat­ed closed ar­eas could se­ri­ous­ly re­strict cit­i­zens’ free­doms.

In a Face­book post yes­ter­day, Young took par­tic­u­lar is­sue with the prospect of res­i­dents be­ing re­quired to ob­tain per­mits to move in and out of cur­few-re­strict­ed ar­eas. He re­ject­ed com­par­isons drawn by Gov­ern­ment mem­bers be­tween closed ar­eas and gat­ed com­mu­ni­ties.

“How could a gat­ed com­mu­ni­ty be com­pa­ra­ble to you hav­ing to go to the State and ap­ply to the po­lice to go to your own home, to go to your own busi­ness?” Young asked.

He ar­gued that the pro­posed sys­tem would mark a sig­nif­i­cant de­par­ture from the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion, in which cit­i­zens do not re­quire State au­tho­ri­sa­tion to ac­cess their homes or busi­ness­es.

Ac­cord­ing to Young, res­i­dents could po­ten­tial­ly need per­mis­sion both to leave their homes and re­ceive vis­i­tors.

Young de­scribed the leg­is­la­tion as “akin to apartheid.”

Apartheid was the sys­tem of in­sti­tu­tion­alised racial seg­re­ga­tion and white mi­nor­i­ty rule that ex­ist­ed in South Africa from 1948 un­til the ear­ly 1990s. Among its fea­tures were pass laws that re­quired non-white South Africans to car­ry doc­u­ments au­tho­ris­ing their pres­ence in cer­tain ar­eas.