Senior Reporter
The effectiveness of any permit system introduced under the Government’s new Special Operations legislation will depend on how professionally and intelligently it is administered, says regional security expert Dr Garvin Heerah.
Speaking with Guardian Media yesterday, Heerah said the system must enhance security as authorities prepare for the possibility of designated closed areas under the legislation.
“The permit system must facilitate security, not become an additional source of disorder, frustration or public distrust,” Heerah said.
Under the legislation, people generally cannot enter or leave a designated closed area without a permit, except in specified circumstances. Heerah said this places significant responsibility on the Commissioner of Police and senior security officials.
“The success of the system will depend not simply on the legal authority to issue permits, but on the architecture, administration, intelligence, discretion and attitude surrounding the permit process,” he said.
Heerah argued that the process must be intelligence-led and risk-based, rather than a one-size-fits-all system. He recommended clearly defined categories for residents, essential workers, emergency and medical personnel, critical infrastructure employees, business operators, educators, religious and community service providers, delivery personnel and legitimate visitors.
“The system should identify legitimate movement while simultaneously helping law enforcement identify movement that requires greater scrutiny,” he said.
However, Heerah cautioned, “A permit should not automatically become a licence to move anywhere, at any time, simply because a document has been issued.”
At the same time, he warned against treating individuals as suspicious, saying intelligence should help determine whether authorised movement is legitimate and consistent with the circumstances.
He also called for a streamlined application process, including online applications, designated physical service points, identity and employment verification, QR-coded or electronically verifiable permits, clear validity periods and a centralised database.
But technology, he said, cannot replace professional judgement. Heerah said checkpoint officers must operate within clearly defined guidelines.
“The objective should be: professional discretion within a defined framework. Not arbitrary discretion.”
He also warned that criminals could attempt to exploit the system through false emergencies, fabricated medical claims, bogus employment information or altered and borrowed permits.
As such, he said officers must be supported by reliable intelligence, verification systems and effective supervision.
“The checkpoint is the physical layer. Intelligence is the invisible layer behind it.”
Heerah further cautioned against discriminatory enforcement.
“Intelligence-led policing must never become intelligence-free profiling,” he said, stressing that a person’s neighbourhood, appearance, occupation or manner of dress should not, on its own, justify differential treatment.
Clear public communication will also be essential, he added, with citizens needing to know where closed areas begin and end, where access points are located, who requires a permit, how to apply and how long approvals remain valid.
“Confusion at a checkpoint is a security vulnerability.”
He also advocated greater transparency, including public reporting on permits issued and denied, fraudulent permits detected, complaints received and the impact of special operations on crime levels.
In addition, Heerah said every major operation should be followed by an after-action review to assess what worked, what failed, the accuracy of intelligence, operational gaps and whether law-abiding citizens were unnecessarily inconvenienced.
Former police commissioner Gary Griffith meanwhile said a permit system could be effectively managed, citing the framework used during the COVID-19 lockdown.
At the time, applicants seeking curfew passes were required to provide documentation outlining their business operations, the number of employees requiring passes, their names and positions, and the registered address and location of operations. In some cases, letters from employers were also required.
Griffith said during his tenure as commissioner, approximately 25,000 permits were issued to facilitate movement for workers in critical sectors.
“We formed a team working tirelessly to make sure the right persons would get those permits,” he said, adding permits covered workers in the energy, security, healthcare, transportation and food sectors, among others.
According to Griffith, a similar approach could be adopted if areas are designated as closed under the Special Operations legislation.
“It is not as difficult and cumbersome and draconian as some people may think,” he said.
However, he stressed that a closed area must first be declared before permits become necessary. Should such areas be established, Griffith believes only a relatively small number of people would require permits to enter or pass through them.
“If you have good justification, you will get the permit.”
Like Heerah, Griffith said the process must be supported by a dedicated team capable of properly vetting applications.
He warned that issuing permits to the wrong people would have ramifications.
“If you give the wrong persons the permit, you are going to defeat the purpose of the operation.”
Griffith also endorsed the legislation’s provisions allowing warrantless entry and searches in specified circumstances when police receive real-time intelligence.
“Sometimes you get real-time information and as soon as you get it you have to move immediately. This is going to greatly assist the police,” he said.
Griffith also said the Special Operations framework offers a more targeted alternative to a state of emergency.
“The value of the Special Operations Bill in comparison to the SoE with the PDOs is that the Special Operations Bill does not give politicians the authority to arrest persons indefinitely without evidence,” he said.
