The Supreme Court has now ruled as unconstitutional the routine use of the states of emergency (SOEs) to fight crime.

By what could be considered a landmark ruling, the learned justices have not only set a precedent but also established constitutional boundaries as to how far a Government can deploy emergency powers in crime fighting. The justices concluded that the SOEs deployed between 2018-2023 were not done for valid constitutional purposes and that they violated the principle of separation of powers.

Predictably, the Government is not happy with this ruling. It believes that SOEs have been instrumental in the historic reduction of crime that the country is now enjoying. This is especially so in the containment of the high murder rates from criminal gunmen who have held the society under siege. It has announced its decision to appeal the ruling.

The Government would be well advised to step cautiously in this regard. It has to be careful that in an election year it does not continue to dig a hole that it might not be able to climb out of. For one, I am not aware of any clear study that has been done to ascertain a direct link between SOEs and the recent reduction of the murder rate. The mere fact that there has to be routine deployment of this measure is a clear indication that they have not worked with the efficiency that the Government prescribed in preventing violent murders over a sustained period. While SOEs can suppress crime in a community over the short term, they do not necessarily lend themselves to doing so in the long term. Achieving long-term results calls for measures other than the draconian ones employed in a state of emergency.

In my unscientific view, the reductions are more attributable to the enhanced capacity of the force in intelligence gathering and in the greater mobility of the police consequent on new vehicles being brought in. The Government, to its credit, has spent billions of dollars on these twin initiatives. One cannot ignore also the improved morale of the force with new boots being added on the ground. So it is not sufficient to say that SOEs played a larger role than any of these other initiatives which are germane to fighting crime.

In this column I have warned repeatedly that SOEs as a crime-fighting tool went against the grain of what a real emergency ought to be. It is satisfying that the learned justices have reached a similar conclusion and have sought to shed greater judicial light on this. By their very nature, SOEs have to be used sparingly, as a matter of last resort when the nation is under deep existential threat.

One may argue that a country in which, for the last 20 years, an average of 1,000 people are murdered annually constitutes a national emergency, which is, in fact, what the Government is saying. But come on, can one seriously say that what has been happening from the 1980 election to the present time meets the smell test of what most countries regard as a national emergency? That the traditional and universally accepted definition is met by a routine deployment of this measure to fight crime? Does this not make a travesty of what the true definition of the term ought to be? When SOEs become so routinised, do they not lose their efficacy when a “real” SOE has to be summoned? I humbly submit that these are the questions that the Government must humbly answer instead of going off on a fool’s errand by contesting the court’s decision.

I will predict that even if they go to the Privy Council they will not prevail on this. They must bend their energies to what is clearly working in reducing crime. Do not waste taxpayers’ money on what may come back to bite you in the rear end. What of the Enhanced Security Measures Bill that is languishing in the Parliament? My understanding is that this Bill is intended to give the security forces enhanced powers in fighting crime, almost akin to what prevails in a state of emergency. The pursuing Government would be better served to work more assiduously in getting this passed so that the security forces can get the enhanced tools to do their work.

But I understand the politics, especially since the Opposition is gloating over what for them is an apparent victory, a crucial one in an election year. We must stop playing cheap politics with matters of crucial national importance. For the first time in a long time, we have the criminals on the run, let us not squander this opportunity on the altar of political aggrandisement.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; Your Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life, and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. He hosts a podcast — Mango Tree Dialogues — on his YouTube channel. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.

Raulston Nembhard