Archive: 21 July 2026

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.

The police force has sought to again explain that the assignment of close protection officers is not automatic or arbitrary.

This in the wake of recent public discourse about some public officials, who deem their life to be at risk, not having adequate security.

In a statement, the Jamaica Constabulary Force pointed out that close protection officers are specially trained members of the force, who are assigned to the Protective Services Division.

This division is responsible for assigning close protection to persons whose office, duties or circumstances warrant that level of security.

It said the assignment of a close protection officer is not automatic, adding that certain constitutional and public offices attract close protection by virtue of the office itself.

Where an individual does not automatically qualify for close protection, a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is conducted, based on a range of factors.

The findings are documented and form the basis upon which a determination is made.

It said serving ministers of government are assigned close protection officers by virtue of the offices they hold and the responsibilities associated with those portfolios.

In the case of members of parliament who are former ministers of government, the continuation of any close protection arrangement is determined through the established threat and risk assessment process.

Where an assessment indicates that the level of risk no longer warrants dedicated close protection, alternative security measures may be considered where appropriate.

It further pointed out that close protection officers are not assigned arbitrarily.

The JCF said given the specialised nature of the function and the finite resources available, every assignment must be justified by a demonstrable security need.

The force therefore has a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are deployed where they are most required.

The JCF said it remains committed to protecting all Jamaicans, and that decisions regarding close protection are guided by professional risk assessment, operational necessity and the responsible management of public resources, with the overriding objective of ensuring that the right level of security is provided to those who require it most.