Two internal government memoranda, apparently issued by the Central Procurement Board and now circulating online, suggest that more than EC$2 million in tactical and “non-lethal” equipment has been approved for the Royal St Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force just days before the country heads to the polls.
The documents, dated 10 November 2025 and addressed to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of National Security, appear to confirm Round Robin approvals granted on 7 November 2025 for two significant purchases from suppliers in Trinidad.
Cliplet News has not independently verified the authenticity of the memoranda, but the format, language and signatures are consistent with official government correspondence. Government officials had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.
500 ballistic vests from “Tactical Limited”
The first memorandum carries the subject line:
“REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE BALLISTIC VESTS FROM A E TACTICAL LTD.”
According to the attached table, the approval covers:
- 500 units of “Body Armor – Matrix Level IIIA, A7 – Male Panel Set … Nylon Carrier”
- Unit cost: US$895 / EC$2,431.63
- Total body-armor cost: US$447,500.00 or about EC$1,215,812.75
Additional charges listed include:
- Bank wire transfer: EC$176.60
- Freight: EC$15,038.04
- Bank charges: EC$85.00
The overall contract value is stated as EC$1,231,111.79, with the supplier described as “Tactical Limited, Trinidad.”
The memo says approval was granted “for the purchase of Ballistic Vests … for Police Services.” The armor listed – Level IIIA – is typically rated to stop handgun rounds and is standard protective gear for police officers in many jurisdictions.
“Non-lethal and protective equipment” from Shark Security
The second memorandum bears a similar heading and file number (MF/938) and is also dated 10 November 2025. Its subject reads:
“REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE NON-LETHAL AND PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FROM SHARK SECURITY.”
The Secretary of the Central Procurement Board informs the Permanent Secretary that approval was likewise granted via Round Robin on 7 November 2025 for the purchase of:
“Non-Lethal and Protective Equipment from Shark Security Limited, Trinidad in the sum of EC$772,081.46 for the Police Services.”
Unlike the first memo, this document does not include a breakdown of the items being purchased, leaving unclear exactly which types of “non-lethal” gear are involved. Such equipment can range from batons, shields and helmets to tear gas, rubber bullets and other crowd-control devices.
Peacekeeping tool or sign of something else?
Combined, the two purchases amount to roughly EC$2 million in new tactical and protective equipment for the police.
Supporters of the move may argue that, with violent crime a persistent concern and police often complaining of outdated or insufficient gear, the investment is overdue. Modern body armor and proper protective equipment can reduce fatalities among officers and, by extension, within the wider community.
But the timing – approvals granted on 7 November and confirmed on 10 November, on the eve of a high-stakes national election – will likely raise eyebrows.
Civil society observers already wary of heavy-handed policing may question:
- Why now? Were these procurements planned long in advance, or rushed through via the Round Robin procedure as the election approached?
- What exactly is in the “non-lethal” package? Without a detailed list, citizens cannot know whether the focus is on basic protective gear or on offensive crowd-control tools.
- Will the equipment be deployed at political events and protests? Clear public guidelines on use could help ease fears of intimidation or excessive force.
Transparency questions
The memos reference a prior 5 November 2025 communication from the Ministry of National Security, suggesting the request moved from ministry to approval in just a few days. While that may be legally permissible, the speed and opacity of the process may fuel suspicion in a politically charged climate.
Key transparency issues include:
- Whether the contracts were tendered competitively or through sole-source arrangements.
- Why both suppliers are foreign, and whether local or regional alternatives were considered.
- If Parliament or any oversight body has been briefed on the scale and nature of the purchases.
Anti-corruption advocates often stress that security procurement is particularly vulnerable to abuse because of secrecy and “national security” justifications. Clear public communication and documentation are commonly recommended safeguards.
Preparing for war – or just better policing?
Ballistic vests and protective gear do not, by themselves, mean a government is “preparing for war.” They can just as easily represent a belated attempt to modernise a police force that has long operated with limited resources.
Yet in a small island state where trust in institutions is fragile and where elections are often hard-fought, the optics of last-minute, multimillion-dollar security purchases are impossible to ignore.
Until the government speaks clearly and provides full details, the public will be left to wonder:
Is this about peace and protection, or about power and control?
For now, the documents raise more questions than they answer.
This article is based on documents that appear to be internal government memoranda. Cliplet News has not independently verified the authenticity of these documents at the time of publication. All interpretations and analysis presented are for informational and journalistic purposes and should not be construed as allegations of wrongdoing.
