Watching the evening news in Jamaica is not a particularly pleasant experience. I do not mean that it is poorly produced, or that the newsreaders and reporters are not doing a good job. It’s the news itself. There is even a Parental Warning before it starts, suggesting that the content may not be suitable for young children.
What a harsh and cruel society we live in. Now, we have all observed the growing number of fatal shootings by our security forces over the past year or so. This month of April, in particular, the number has reached deeply alarming levels. It hangs like a dark cloud over the regular news of political bickering, stories of struggling communities and personal resilience. The killings have become almost a part of the landscape: present, repeated, and reported on, every single day.
In April 2026 (to date) there have been 37 fatal shootings by the security forces in just 28 days. The number this year to date has risen to 113, surpassing last year’s fatalities at the same time in 2025 – which ended with 64 percent more fatalities than in 2024. By contrast, this is roughly 25 times the rate of police killings in the USA (compared by population size). In the UK, there were two fatal shootings by police for the year 2024-25, and 17 deaths in, or following police custody.
Yesterday, the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) reported that it was probing the deaths of five people allegedly at the hands of the police in just 24 hours on April 27. Two of these reportedly involved men with mental health issues.
But it’s not all about numbers, shocking as they are. Last Sunday’s Gleaner editorial sums it all up very well: the almost casually dismissive remarks last week by Dr. Horace Chang, Minister of National Security and Peace regarding the use of body-worn cameras (or absence of them) are disturbing on many levels. Dr. Chang’s remarks in Parliament might even suggest that the Minister is setting policy for the Jamaica Constabulary Force – something that he would deny. And yet, he and Police Commissioner Kevin Blake appear to work as a kind of tag team; both of them appear particularly hostile to civil society groups that point out the need for body-worn cameras, in particular. They regularly recycle justifications (or excuses?) for the non-use of the cameras. This evening, in a television report, Commissioner Blake said the “infrastructure” for downloading, storing and viewing the recordings was apparently not available – something the Prime Minister had asserted about a year ago. At one time, it was that the cameras did not fit properly on their uniforms. Another argument is that the flashing light when the camera is recording gives away the officers’ location; however, there are cameras with a “stealth mode” setting. Do we have this model?
In any case, we seem to have nothing but obfuscation on this issue: what we do know is that we have body cameras in Jamaica. Last September I noted in this blog that they had been acquired. At the time, many concerns had been raised about the controversial killing of 22-year-old Jamar Farquharson in Cherry Tree Lane, Clarendon; CCTV footage appeared to show him coming to the door of his house with hands raised.
Those words “transparency” and “accountability” come to mind. The cameras might not only hold the police officers accountable, but in their recordings would show the actions of those they are pursuing in a truthful and open light that might well be helpful to the police themselves. The cameras are not intended to “catch them out,” as it were, but simply to show what really happened. In the current atmosphere, abuses by the police (including a recent incident where one policeman allegedly kicked and punched an elderly man) are recorded by community members on their phones and posted on social media. This is not the way to go; it also spreads distrust among citizens.
A Jamaican living in the United States, Dr. Leo Gilling, writes regularly on Substack. His comments on the subject (Jamaica Bought the Cameras, But Who Decides When Truth Is Recorded?) are well worth a read. He observes, wryly: “We made a commitment. We introduced the technology. We struggled to use it. We explained the gaps. We reframed the issue. We recommitted. We declared the problem solved. And then we defined the limits of its use in a way that reintroduces the very concerns we said were addressed.”
So, I suppose, we go round in circles, while the body count goes up.
INDECOM put out a press release headlined:
INDECOM concerned with BWC pronouncements by a member of the Executive, The Hon. Dr. Horace Chang
April 23, 2026 – The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) notes with critical concern recent public statements made by The Honourable Dr. Horace Chang, Minister of National Security and Peace, dismissing the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by police officers during planned operations.
In 2025, INDECOM investigated the fatal shooting of 311 persons by members of the security forces, the highest figure recorded since 2010. That represented an increase of approximately 65 per cent over the previous year. That troubling trend has continued into 2026, with 105 persons shot and killed by members of the security forces to date, compared with 102 at the same period last year. Planned Police Operations accounted for approximately 50 per cent of fatalities in 2025.
These figures demonstrate that the necessity for the use of BWCs is not abstract or academic. It goes directly to the preservation of life, public confidence, and the ability of independent authorities to properly determine the circumstances in which lethal force is used by representatives of the State.
Body worn cameras are now a standard feature of modern policing across numerous jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and Brazil, and are routinely used by officers engaged in firearm, tactical, and other high-risk operations. To characterize their use in such settings as unreasonable or impractical is inconsistent with established international policing practices.
INDECOM’s position on BWCs has one central foundation: objective evidence. The Commission does not presume that every police fatal shooting is unlawful, nor is it ideologically opposed to the lawful use of force by the Security Forces. INDECOM’s duty is to determine, independently and fairly, what occurred in each case. Where no independent footage exists, Investigators and Courts are often left to assess life-and-death incidents based solely on conflicting verbal accounts. Families are denied clarity, officers are denied potentially exculpatory evidence, and public confidence is weakened.
International research strongly supports the use of BWCs. A peer-reviewed randomised controlled trial in Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil involving officers assigned to tactical operations against armed suspects, found that officers randomly assigned to wear BWCs discharged their firearms significantly less often. A separate large-scale study of the São Paulo Military Police in Brazil, found that the introduction of BWCs was associated with an approximate 50 per cent reduction in police shootings. These findings demonstrate that accountability technology can reduce escalation while strengthening legitimacy.
The National Institute of Justice has also reported that by 2016, approximately 80 per cent of large police departments in the United States had acquired BWCs, citing improved officer safety, stronger evidence collection, reduced complaints, and lower liability exposure among the principal benefits.
INDECOM’s 2025 Special Investigative Report on Planned Police Operations highlighted Jamaican scenarios where the use of BWCs during planned operations, demonstrated no operational risk to the concerned officers but rather demanded additional transparency mechanisms. It noted examples of officers engaged in dialogues with suspects who were unrestrained with handcuffs and allegedly subsequently accessed a firearm as well as contradictory accounts of witnesses. INDECOM maintains the view that advocating for police accountability in the use of BWCs carries no adverse consequences and does not reflect anti-police sentiments. Accountability and operational effectiveness are not opposites. Public trust is strengthened where lethal force is transparently documented and independently reviewed.
Assertions that BWCs create unacceptable operational risk are not supported by global experiences. Modern BWCs are compact, durable, and specifically designed for frontline use. Police services worldwide have addressed issues of placement, activation, battery life, and tactical integration through policy, procurement, and training. These are management issues, not valid reasons to reject the technology altogether for deployment in certain circumstances. As the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) continues its procurement processes, BWC equipment suitable to Jamaica’s operational realities can and should be prioritized.
INDECOM does not seek to instruct the Commissioner of Police on operational tactics, nor interfere with the executive functions of the Ministry of National Security, but rather makes recommendations to encourage the adoption of measures that enhance operational effectiveness and mutual trust between law enforcement and civilians. The Commission therefore renews its call for clear and enforceable policies requiring the implementation and activation of BWCs in any encounter where lethal force is reasonably foreseeable. INDECOM further calls upon the Government of Jamaica, in keeping with its constitutional and international right-to-life obligations, to mandate the use of BWCs by the Security Forces, beginning with Planned Police Operations where fatal shootings remain disproportionately high. The issue is no longer theoretical, it is urgent in the interest of public confidence.
INDECOM’s mandate is accountability and truth-finding after actions by members of the Security Forces. The Commission has both the authority and the duty to speak publicly where misconceptions can threaten transparency, distort the evidentiary basis of investigations, or challenges the breadth of Jamaica’s oversight framework.
INDECOM will continue to discharge its statutory mandate independently, impartially and objectively, without fear or favour. INDECOM will advocate for measures that strengthen confidence in policing, improve investigative integrity, uphold the rule of law and are in the best interest of all citizens of Jamaica.
