Minister of National Security, Dr. Peter Phillips (right) shares a word with Police Commissioner Lucius Thomas during a press conference last March. - Ian Allen/Staff Photographer

As we reported elsewhere in today's paper, Dr. Peter Phillips, the Minister of National Security, is warning against the infiltration of the legislature by criminals involved in the narcotics trade. In this interview with Senior Gleaner Writer Earl Moxam, he expands on this and other areas of concern.

Dr. Phillips, with the string of what appear to be successful drug operations by the police from 2005 into this year, including those earlier this week, would you say that the scales have tilted decisively in favour of "the good guys"?

Gains are being made and these are the result of very careful preparation - the establishment of a unit such as Operation Kingfish; the development of new techniques in relation to homicide investigations, enhancement of our intelligence capability; new training in other areas, so a host of things have taken place which are contributing to the improvements we have been seeing for eight months now. For every single month of the year we have had a decline in murders and far exceeding the original target. Having said that, however, we still have too high a level of crime and one critical lesson from all of this is that you have to go after the perpetrators.

Are you therefore making a direct link between successful drug operations and the murder rate?

I am making a link, yes, though not necessarily a direct link, but I think the drug trade provides a lot of the material resources, the finance to purchase guns to suborn communities and woo them over to criminality, to arm youths on the corner to provide these private armies, and by cutting that down you have delivered some blows to violent criminality.

Let me come back at you with another metaphor and ask; have we turned the corner?

The figures are moving in the right direction. What I would like to see is for us to sustain this downward movement, and we are putting measures in place that we think will help sustain and even accelerate it. I would want to speak about turning the corner when we have seen two or three years of the same level of reduction.

What are the lingering dangers, from your perspective?

There are still too many weapons in the hands of people of criminal intent. There is still the possibility of resurgence of organised crime operations and to the extent that they remain armed, there is still that imminent risk, and we have to face the fact that we have not yet removed all the major pivots of organised crime.

Many persons have been commending you and the commissioner and others who have played a role in the reductions achieved to date, but there is the lingering question as to the possibility of political connections and whether there are persons who might be crucial to the perpetuation of the problem who have not yet been touched.

Well, let me say this definitively: There is no protection of any kind, political or otherwise, for any criminal and, certainly, I know that the Prime Minister would not countenance any such interference and I certainly would not countenance any interference of any sort in relation to anyone. But the public also needs to understand that when dealing with organised criminality, you have to painstakingly do your intelligence collection, convert that into evidence that will enable you to successfully present that to the court. Anyone whom people feel should be in the sights of the police is not necessarily being ignored. Many of the criminals are now on the defensive and are being more careful, so it means that we have to adjust tactics and intensify our efforts in that regard, and there is always the limitation of resources available to us, both human and material.

You yourself have spoken in the past of the danger to the State of persons with criminal connections, not only influencing the political process, but in some instances, even finding a way into Parliament. Does this remain a clear and present danger?

Yes, I think it does. I certainly don't think we have turned the corner to the extent that I would want us to turn it as far as the risk to the political process is concerned, but I think that one way to assure a greater level of confidence is to give the assurance that anyone, no matter their status, who falls afoul of the law will be brought before the courts and the security forces know that they have that particular mandate. It is a mandate not to victimise politically but it is a mandate to ensure that no one, politician, businessman, of high status or whatever, is going to breach the laws of this country, prey on the citizens of this land, and exploit people's weaknesses simply for greed and get away with it.

Are you as minister taking personal risks where this effort is concerned?

There are risks entailed in this job and you try to minimise the risk as best you can and make your own arrangements to reduce the risk.

Have you suffered politically for this?

Well, I think the evidence is there! In the recent presidential campaign, for example, no other candidate who had his logos and T-shirts publicly destroyed for the position he had taken against criminal activities and criminal connections with the party, but that's a risk I have to take.

Does that indicate that there are people who continue to see the party as a safe home for them, despite their criminal activities?

I can't speak as to whether there are people who consider the party a safe home for them, and I certainly don't think it is. I don't think there is safety anywhere for people who are involved in criminal activity, it is just a matter of time and I don't think there is anyone in the leadership of the party who is saying that criminals have a legitimate place in the party, but it is the responsibility of the law enforcement authorities to ferret out criminals and bring them to justice and that is what we need - to secure law enforcement with the competence, courage, integrity and the determination to search out criminals wherever they might be and bring them to book.

For a very long time people have been looking at the political parties and the political culture and have been saying that the parties have been too accommodating in some instances, perhaps turning a blind eye in some instances, if not explicitly saying that it is okay.

I think if you look at the 40-odd years of Jamaica's Independence there is no doubt that we have suffered from the confluence of criminality and politics. Violence became an element too closely linked with political life and that brought unsavoury elements into the political process. We all should recognise by this that this is a route into the pit of oblivion for the country as a whole and that there should be consensus, and I hope that there is no one in the political process at any senior position anywhere who thinks that violence or criminal connections should be tolerated or can be justified. If there is anyone who would think that, then they should be aware that they will be caught and brought to justice.