The decision by the Government of Barbados and the Barbados Port Inc. to introduce truth verification testing at the Bridgetown Port is as significant as it is controversial.
Since its introduction on July 15, 2025, all individuals conducting business at the Port may be asked to submit to lie detector tests if they require access to certain secure areas.
The tests, according to the government, are part of a broader strategy to strengthen national security. The administration has asserted that this measure is not meant to target workers indiscriminately, but rather to safeguard critical infrastructure by ensuring that only trusted people have access to sensitive zones.
This policy shift must be examined in the context of growing national anxiety. Over the past two to three years, Barbados has seen a marked and troubling rise in gun-related violence. Illegal firearms have made their way onto our streets in increasing numbers, feeding a wave of murders, shootings, and fear. The government is right to be alarmed—and the public has every reason to demand decisive action.
No one doubts that the Bridgetown Port is a critical aspect of the island’s security architecture. If guns are entering our country, the ports of entry must be part of the investigation and part of the solution. In that sense, it is not surprising that the Port has looked to expand the use of truth verification testing (TVT), which we have been told has already been part of its employee recruitment practices since 2019.
Furthermore, there is good ground to suspect that efforts to curtail the illegal importation of firearms were among the considerations for the introduction of TVT.
But while the goal may be laudable, we contend the execution raises some concerns.
First and foremost, the rollout of this policy has left key stakeholders feeling blindsided. The National Union of Public Workers (NUPW), which represents many government employees, has publicly insisted that it did not agree to the action being taken. This is more than a procedural misstep; it appears to be a process failure.
Any initiative that could affect the employment terms or working conditions of public servants must involve meaningful consultation with all representative bodies—not just those handpicked or already at the table.
Furthermore, there is the matter of how “voluntary” this testing really is. Statements from the government suggest that individuals cannot be forced to take the test, but also noted that those who refuse may be reassigned to roles that do not require access to secure areas. That sounds less like consent and more like pressure.
This is not to suggest that lie detector tests have no place in modern security protocols. In fact, in jurisdictions dealing with criminal networks and entrenched corruption, such tests are used as screening tools in sensitive posts, particularly in customs, border control, law enforcement, and intelligence services. The key difference is how these tools are implemented.
In functioning democracies, such measures are usually accompanied by clear legal frameworks, independent oversight, and protections for workers’ rights.
The Anti-Corruption and Anti-Terrorism Agency, which will lead the implementation of the testing at the Port, has a vital role to play in this regard. Transparency, safeguards, and a clearly communicated appeals process must be built into the system from the start. If the goal is to root out corruption and prevent collusion with criminal elements, it must be done with clarity.
Indeed, corruption remains a real threat. It is often the invisible hand behind the movement of illegal goods, including firearms. Polygraph testing may help deter and detect such behaviour, but it is no substitute for comprehensive anti-corruption reforms.
International agencies have suggested that internal audits, surveillance systems, asset tracking, and whistleblower protections are essential, and possibly more valuable than any lie detector.
This issue boils down to trust. The public must trust that the government is acting in their best interests. Equally, workers must trust that they are being treated fairly, and not as pieces in a security puzzle.
If Barbados is to protect its borders while upholding the rule of law and workers’ rights, it must aim for a balanced approach.
The post Truth, trust and the test at the Port appeared first on Barbados Today.