From an administrative point of view, it makes sense to remove all police officers attached to the St Joseph Police station, after guns and drugs were discovered hidden in the ceiling of that building.

As Acting Police Commissioner James Philbert explained at a news conference on Wednesday, this is to assure citizens who come to the station that they are not dealing with officers who have a cloud of suspicion hanging over them. On the other hand, with 38 officers having been transferred across the 70-plus stations in Trinidad and Tobago, people in other districts may well wonder if the officer who is being rude or inefficient is a trafficker in guns or drugs.

And this is the nub of the matter. One officer, or several officers working together, hid the two guns and 160 packets of illegal drugs in the St Joseph station. The fact that these officers, among the rest who probably had no knowledge or involvement in the matter, have merely been transferred has aroused considerable unease in the minds of the public. Mr Philbert has explained that there is no ’prima facie’’ case to suspend any officer. However, if there is a basis to charge the senior officers of the station, this option should be pursued, if only to assure the public that the Police Service is serious about rooting out the criminals in its midst.

Section 29 of the Dangerous Drugs Act states that ’a person, until the contrary is proven, shall be deemed to be the occupier of premises, if he has, or appears to have, the care, control or management of such premises’’. And it is well-known that, when official raids are made on private homes, the police usually arrest everyone living there, including youths and sometimes the aged who are unlikely to be involved in any nefarious activity. So what is the legal difference if the premises is a police station?

If, however, the Acting CoP does not consider this the way to go, then he must make every effort to ensure that somebody is arrested and charged very soon. But it is worrying from the outset to hear that the suspected officers have to undergo fingerprint tests. This should not be necessary, since Section 72 of the Police Service Act charges the Commissioner to create and keep a data base with every police officer’s fingerprints. Hopefully, though, fingerprint and DNA evidence will reveal who concealed these items.

But even if that doesn’t happen, the fact remains that at least the senior officers failed in their duty. And, if a police officer can be fired for being rude to the Prime Minister, then we are certain that, in this far more serious matter, dismissals should be even easier.