WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER CONFUSES DISSENT WITH DISLOYALTY: IS JAMAICA’S DEMOCRACY UNDER THREAT?

By Richard Hugh Blackford

THE TROUBLING LANGUAGE OF POLITICAL INTOLERANCE

It has become an increasingly familiar feature of Prime Minister Andrew Holness's public pronouncements that Jamaicans who question his administration's policies, challenge its decisions or demand accountability are subjected to dismissive political labels. His dismissal of public outrage regarding students studying under trees following Hurricane Melissa as "nonsense" and his sharp criticism of law enforcement detractors as "two-mouth people" are signs of a leadership style that appears defensive and dismissive of legitimate public grievance. The fact is that when a head of government labels challenging perspectives as illegitimate or deceptive, it risks marginalizing public dissent and chilling open dialogue. His most recent “two-mouthed,” unpatriotic comment is even more troublingly, as it portrays persons critical of obvious Jamaica Constabulary Force extra-judicial activities as sympathetic to criminality.

On October 21, 2026, the Prime Minister used a housing handover and ribbon-cutting ceremony at the East Palms development in Kingston Central to launch another broadside against critics of the police where he referred to those questioning the security forces, Holness declared: "All of the two-mouth people them. Sometimes you wonder, where were they when the murder rate was high?" He went further, suggesting that some Jamaicans were almost defending criminality when they questioned police conduct.

But when did questioning the police become synonymous with defending criminals? And when did the Prime Minister acquire the authority to determine which citizens are sufficiently patriotic to exercise their constitutional right to dissent?

My concern extends beyond the Prime Minister's language. Taken alongside his administration's record of use of emergency powers, unconstitutional detentions and previous proposals to restrict fundamental rights, these pronouncements raise a consequential question.

Are we witnessing the gradual normalization of governance in which State authority increasingly takes precedence over individual liberty?

THE STATE OF EMERGENCY: WHEN EXTRAORDINARY POWERS BECAME ROUTINE

For years, the Holness administration relied heavily on States of Public Emergency (SOEs) as instruments of crime control. Extraordinary powers intended for exceptional circumstances were repeatedly deployed across Jamaican communities. Citizens were subjected to warrantless searches, arrests and prolonged detention under emergency regulations.

The government defended these interventions as necessary responses to violent crime. But the constitutional question was never whether Jamaica faced a serious crime problem. It was whether the government's methods complied with the law.

The courts provided important answers and in July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against the detention of five men held under emergency powers, some for more than a year without charge. In July 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed the government's appeal.

In June 2022, the Full Court also ruled on unconstitutional provisions and practices involving emergency detention in the Roshaine Clarke case.

These were not abstract legal disagreements. They concerned real Jamaicans deprived of their liberty through State power.

Importantly, the courts did not declare every State of Emergency unconstitutional. Their rulings nevertheless exposed serious violations of constitutional protections under the emergency detention regime.

By August 2024, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had expressed concern about Jamaica's continued reliance on SOEs, warning that emergency powers must remain exceptional, proportionate and limited in duration.

A democracy cannot indefinitely govern through extraordinary powers while treating constitutional safeguards as inconvenient obstacles to effective policing. And citizens who challenge those practices are not defending criminals. They are defending the Jamaican Constitution.

THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL’S EXTRAORDINARY PROPOSITION

These concerns did not emerge in a political vacuum as in July 2016, then Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte told Parliament that certain fundamental rights and freedoms might have to be restricted in the campaign against violent crime. Her formulation was particularly striking: "Abrogated, abridged or infringed."

She argued that such restrictions might be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Jamaica's Constitution does permit certain restrictions on rights where stringent constitutional requirements are satisfied. But that provision cannot become an invitation to treat fundamental freedoms as expendable. The State must establish the necessity, proportionality and legality of any restriction. Citizens should not have to explain why they deserve to retain their freedoms.

In November 2025, Malahoo Forte, by then a former Cabinet minister, also proposed reconsidering the criminalization of libel, which Jamaica abolished in 2013. Although presented as a response to online harassment and defamatory attacks, the suggestion raised legitimate concerns about freedom of expression.

I am not suggesting that these statements conclusively establish a coordinated government programme to dismantle civil liberties. But neither should we ignore the relationship between arguments favouring restrictions on rights, the exercise of extraordinary State powers and the Prime Minister's repeated attempts to discredit those who question his administration. Together, they demand vigilance.

POLICE SHOOTINGS: WHAT EXACTLY ARE JAMAICANS BEING ASKED TO SUPPORT?

The Prime Minister's remarks are especially troubling against the background of Jamaicans killed by members of the security forces. According to INDECOM, 311 persons were fatally shot by police in 2025, representing a substantial increase over 2024. By mid-October 2026, another 232 persons had reportedly been killed by members of the security forces. These are extraordinary numbers for a country of fewer than three million people. They do not establish that every shooting was unlawful. But they demand rigorous examination of police operations, the use of lethal force and the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms.

INDECOM has repeatedly raised concerns about the absence of body-worn cameras during planned police operations, even where armed confrontations were foreseeable.

Why should such elementary safeguards remain inconsistently deployed when hundreds of lives are being lost? Surely the Prime Minister understands that supporting the police and demanding lawful conduct are not contradictory positions. Yet his rhetoric risks creating precisely that false distinction.

SLIGOVILLE: A TRAGEDY REQUIRING ANSWERS , NOT POLITICAL LABELS

The recent deadly confrontation in Sligoville, St Catherine, brings these concerns into sharp focus. Two young police officers lost their lives. Three men identified by police as gunmen were killed. A ten-year-old girl was seriously injured.

The officers' deaths deserve national sympathy and recognition of the dangers confronting law enforcement personnel. But those deaths cannot eliminate legitimate questions about the planning and execution of the operation.

A video reportedly captured negotiations involving persons inside the premises, with the frightened child pleading for her safety. What efforts were made to resolve the confrontation without further loss of life? Was the operation adequately planned? Were the officers properly prepared? What measures were taken to protect the child?

These questions require independent investigation and evidence, not political denunciations. The right to life and the State's obligation to act lawfully do not disappear because someone is suspected of criminal activity.

CRIME REDUCTION CANNOT BE THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUCCESSFUL POLICING

Prime Minister Holness repeatedly points to Jamaica's declining murder rate as evidence that his security strategy is working. A sustained reduction in murders would unquestionably represent an important achievement. But murder statistics cannot be the only measurement of successful policing.

We must also examine deaths caused by State agents, the legality of those killings, accountability for misconduct and public confidence in the justice system. If fewer Jamaicans are being murdered by criminals while hundreds continue to die in confrontations with the security forces, both realities deserve examination. One statistic cannot silence questions about the other. The government must protect citizens from criminals. It must equally protect them from unlawful State power.

FROM NaRRA TO NATIONAL SECURITY: THE RIGHT TO QUESTION GOVERNMENT

We have witnessed similar dismissiveness towards those questioning Hurricane Melissa's recovery, NaRRA's establishment, public expenditure and institutional oversight. These are legitimate matters of public interest; and Jamaicans have every right to question billions in expenditure, the qualifications of public appointees and the effectiveness of reconstruction programmes. The same principle applies to policing.

Citizens do not surrender democratic rights because a government claims to be getting things done. Nor does electoral victory confer immunity from scrutiny between elections. The government belongs to the people. The people do not belong to the government.

PATRIOTISM IS NOT BLIND OBEDIENCE

I recently encountered a social media poster suggesting that persons unwilling to take up a rifle in defense of their country have no legitimate right to criticize it. That proposition reflects a profound misunderstanding of citizenship and democratic responsibility as democracy is not a military enlistment contract.

A soldier may defend a nation's territorial integrity with a rifle. A journalist may defend democracy with a pen. A lawyer may defend constitutional freedoms in court. An ordinary citizen may defend those freedoms by speaking against injustice. Each has a legitimate role.

Patriotism is not blind obedience to the State. Criticism of government is not disloyalty to one's country. In fact, challenging abuses of power may be among the most important expressions of democratic citizenship.

THE GREATER DANGER: NORMALIZING THE EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

My concern is not simply that Prime Minister Holness appears increasingly impatient with criticism. It is that his pronouncements must be considered against a documented history of extraordinary security powers, judicial findings of unconstitutional detention and political arguments favouring restrictions on fundamental rights.

None of these facts independently proves an intention to establish authoritarian government. But together they raise serious questions about Jamaica's commitment to constitutional restraint and democratic accountability.

The greatest danger to democracy is not always the sudden abolition of its institutions. Sometimes it is the gradual acceptance of practices once considered unacceptable. Emergency powers become routine. Detention without charge becomes tolerable. Fatal police shootings become statistics. Citizens demanding accountability are portrayed as sympathizers of criminals. Eventually, government success becomes measured only by what the State accomplishes, rather than whether it acts lawfully in accomplishing it. Jamaica must not allow that distinction to disappear.

The Prime Minister is entitled to defend his administration, support the police and challenge his critics. But governing carries an obligation to respect the constitutional freedoms of those who disagree.

The fundamental question is not whether Jamaicans support the police or support criminals. It is whether Jamaica can defeat criminality without allowing the State itself to become unaccountable.

A democracy that protects citizens from criminals but fails to protect them from abuses of State power has not fulfilled its constitutional promise. And no Jamaican should have to prove patriotism, political loyalty or willingness to bear arms before being permitted to say so.