ONE year ago next Tuesday, Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) gleefully announced it had received $52 million from the European Union (EU) to fund a three-year project to promote and safeguard human rights in Jamaica through education, advocacy, and legal support services.

We were hoping to see a one-year progress report on the admittedly laudable goals of the Government-endorsed project. Instead, what we have witnessed is JFJ pouring cold water on the rather impressive drop in murders by carping about wrongful police killings, which seems to be what it means by “extrajudicial killings”.

In the face of Government reporting a 35.9 per cent decrease in homicides recorded between January 1 and April 5, 2025, compared to the same period last year, or 107 fewer lives lost, JFJ is lamenting that police killings are up by 163 per cent since the beginning of the year.

Careful readers of this newspaper know that we would never support wrongful police killings, especially if it’s deliberate. But it would be naïve to believe that with the annual increase in murders the police would not be involved in more confrontations with gunmen, and potentially more police killings.

With Jamaicans saying in the latest public opinion polls that crime and violence is their number one concern, one cannot help but wonder about the motive behind JFJ’s attack on the police and their work in ridding the country of marauding gunmen who make life miserable for our citizens; scare off our compatriots who wish to relocate home; and dissuade potential investors.

One could also be forgiven for asking whether JFJ needs to justify its funding by indulging in activities such as accusing the police of extrajudicial killings? Is there nothing else that could meet the strict funding criteria of international donors? Moreover, what are the terms on which the EU’s $52 million is granted, and what are the applicable reporting standards?

It is noteworthy that the JFJ, according to a past report to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, defines unlawful police killings as ranging from “reckless or negligent homicides, to calculated vigilantism, to corruption and political polarisation”.

Of course, there is a probability of wrongful police killings because human beings make errors, but it would be useful if the JFJ would provide clear evidence of such killings rather than pointing to increasing police homicides as potential proof they are deliberately carrying out such activities.

In that same 2008 report JFJ complained that, “Despite repeated claims of ‘shoot-outs’ and finding firearms on the deceased victims, police are rarely injured or killed in these gun battles, which residents and eyewitnesses frequently deny ever happened.” This is not enough, unless the JFJ would be satisfied with more police deaths by gunmen as proof.

JFJ, to make its case against the police, has a mindset that there is “pervasive pro-police bias among investigators, prosecutors, and judges” — virtually all arms of the justice system. We suggest that the organisation tests the system by bringing more lawsuits on alleged police killings.

Our view is that democratic societies are better off with organisations focused on defending human rights. But they must never lose sight of the context in which they operate. JFJ can’t have its cake and eat it too.