Pan Trinbago, stakeholders seek clarity on Special Operations Bill

Pan Trin­ba­go is seek­ing clar­i­ty from the Gov­ern­ment on how the pro­posed Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Bill, 2026 could af­fect steel­bands, pa­n­yards, re­hearsals and oth­er ac­tiv­i­ties as­so­ci­at­ed with Trinidad and To­ba­go’s na­tion­al mu­si­cal in­stru­ment.

In a state­ment, Pan Trin­ba­go said it recog­nis­es the Gov­ern­ment’s re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­tect cit­i­zens and ad­dress crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty and is not op­pos­ing mea­sures in­tend­ed to im­prove pub­lic safe­ty.

How­ev­er, it wants clear guid­ance on how the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion would ap­ply to le­git­i­mate steel­pan ac­tiv­i­ties.

Pan Trin­ba­go said the pa­n­yard is an im­por­tant part of the steel­pan move­ment, serv­ing as a space where play­ers re­hearse, young peo­ple learn, arrangers de­vel­op mu­sic, in­stru­ments are main­tained and com­mu­ni­ties gath­er.

It said the steel­pan move­ment al­so in­volves arrangers, mu­si­cians, man­u­fac­tur­ers, tuners, tech­ni­cians, ad­min­is­tra­tors, cul­tur­al prac­ti­tion­ers, fam­i­lies, ven­dors, trans­porta­tion providers and oth­er ser­vice providers.

Pan Trin­ba­go is there­fore seek­ing clar­i­fi­ca­tion on pro­vi­sions re­lat­ing to des­ig­nat­ed closed ar­eas, ac­cess and move­ment, cur­fews, per­mits and spe­cial op­er­a­tions.

It wants to know how those pro­vi­sions would ap­ply to pa­n­yard op­er­a­tions and ac­cess, re­hearsals and prac­tice ses­sions, move­ment of play­ers and arrangers, prepa­ra­tion for Panora­ma and oth­er fes­ti­vals, cul­tur­al and com­mu­ni­ty ac­tiv­i­ties, and the con­ti­nu­ity of steel­pan-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty dur­ing pe­ri­ods when spe­cial mea­sures are im­ple­ment­ed.

Pan Trin­ba­go said the is­sue is par­tic­u­lar­ly im­por­tant as bands and com­mu­ni­ties en­ter a pe­ri­od of prepa­ra­tion for up­com­ing fes­ti­vals, Panora­ma and oth­er na­tion­al, re­gion­al and in­ter­na­tion­al en­gage­ments.

It said con­sis­tent ac­cess to pa­n­yards and re­hearsals is fun­da­men­tal to the de­vel­op­ment and pre­sen­ta­tion of the na­tion­al mu­si­cal in­stru­ment.

Pan Trin­ba­go al­so warned that any un­in­tend­ed dis­rup­tion to pa­n­yard op­er­a­tions or re­hearsals could af­fect com­mu­ni­ties, cul­tur­al prac­ti­tion­ers, small busi­ness­es, ser­vice providers and fam­i­lies in­volved in the wider steel­pan ecosys­tem.

The or­gan­i­sa­tion said pub­lic safe­ty and the con­ti­nu­ity of cul­tur­al life can be ad­dressed through clear com­mu­ni­ca­tion, ap­pro­pri­ate pro­to­cols and con­sul­ta­tion.

The state­ment comes as Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar said she would on­ly au­tho­rise spe­cial op­er­a­tions in the 26 UNC-held con­stituen­cies and 70 UNC-held lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­toral dis­tricts, as well as the two To­ba­go Peo­ple’s Par­ty-held con­stituen­cies, af­ter con­sul­ta­tion with Chief Sec­re­tary Far­ley Au­gus­tine.

The con­cerns al­so come af­ter Berke­ley Car­ni­val Rev­o­lu­tion (BCR) called on the Gov­ern­ment to clar­i­fy how spe­cial op­er­a­tions mea­sures, in­clud­ing pos­si­ble cur­fews, move­ment re­stric­tions and per­mit re­quire­ments, could af­fect the cul­tur­al sec­tor.

In a state­ment on Mon­day, BCR said mas camps, pa­n­yards, stu­dios, the­atres, dance com­pa­nies and oth­er cul­tur­al spaces pro­vide pro­duc­tive out­lets while help­ing to build skills, strength­en com­mu­ni­ties and pre­serve cul­tur­al tra­di­tions.

The group said many of these spaces op­er­ate in work­ing-class and mar­gin­alised com­mu­ni­ties, with much of the work tak­ing place at night.

With the 2027 Car­ni­val sea­son ap­proach­ing, BCR said cul­tur­al prac­ti­tion­ers can­not sim­ply move their ac­tiv­i­ties to day­time hours be­cause many peo­ple in­volved in Car­ni­val have reg­u­lar jobs and par­tic­i­pate in cul­tur­al ac­tiv­i­ties af­ter work.

The is­sue was al­so raised dur­ing Fri­day’s par­lia­men­tary de­bate by Diego Mar­tin West MP Hans Des Vi­gnes, who said the pro­posed mea­sures could af­fect cul­ture, sport and youth.

Des Vi­gnes said cul­tur­al per­form­ers would have to move in and out of com­mu­ni­ties for re­hearsals and per­for­mances.

“Let us un­der­stand what this means in terms of cul­ture,” he said, be­fore be­ing in­ter­rupt­ed by Cou­va South MP Bar­ry Padarath.

Des Vi­gnes lat­er said he was “stand­ing up for my con­stituents who are cul­tur­al per­form­ers” who would have to “tra­verse in and out of com­mu­ni­ties”.

Padarath ar­gued that peo­ple in dif­fer­ent pro­fes­sions would still re­quire per­mits, while Oropouche East MP Dr Roodal Mooni­lal told Des Vi­gnes to move on, say­ing Par­lia­ment had al­ready heard con­cerns about peo­ple in­clud­ing plumbers, elec­tri­cians, car­pen­ters, ath­letes and singers.

BCR al­so raised con­cerns about move­ment re­stric­tions, say­ing Car­ni­val ac­tiv­i­ties in­volve peo­ple trav­el­ling be­tween com­mu­ni­ties and dis­tricts.

“A per­son may live in one dis­trict, work in an­oth­er, at­tend re­hearsals in a third, and trav­el through sev­er­al dis­tricts to get home,” BCR said.

It al­so ques­tioned how a per­mit sys­tem would af­fect peo­ple with­out smart­phones or re­li­able in­ter­net ac­cess.

BCR said it was con­cerned about com­ments at­trib­uted to De­fence Min­is­ter Wayne Sturge sug­gest­ing that mem­bers of the pub­lic need “an ounce of com­mon sense” to un­der­stand the per­mit sys­tem.

“Ask­ing le­git­i­mate ques­tions about how new re­stric­tions will af­fect peo­ple’s lives is not a lack of com­mon sense. It is re­spon­si­ble cit­i­zen­ship,” the group said.

BCR is ask­ing the Gov­ern­ment to ex­plain how cul­tur­al prac­ti­tion­ers and work­ers will ac­cess mas camps, pa­n­yards, stu­dios, re­hearsal spaces and oth­er work­places; how peo­ple trav­el­ling be­tween dis­tricts will be ac­com­mo­dat­ed; and how per­mits will be is­sued to peo­ple with­out smart­phones or re­li­able in­ter­net ac­cess.

It al­so wants clar­i­ty on how late-night cul­tur­al ac­tiv­i­ty will be ac­com­mo­dat­ed and what arrange­ments will ap­ply dur­ing the Car­ni­val sea­son.

BCR said it does not sup­port “the cre­ation of a po­lice state to en­force a sys­tem of apartheid” and called for the pro­tec­tion of hu­man rights and dig­ni­ty.

“Se­cu­ri­ty can­not come at the ex­pense of peo­ple’s abil­i­ty to move, work, gath­er, cre­ate, and par­tic­i­pate in their com­mu­ni­ties,” the group said.

“Cul­ture can­not thrive when the peo­ple who cre­ate it can­not freely par­tic­i­pate in it.”