Regular, intensive training programmes have been proposed to better coordinate army/police operations, after the poor results of recent internal security campaigns.
The Disciplined Forces Commission report says it is an inattention to training that may have led to the perception that these agencies were unwilling to perform their duties during their joint campaign on the East Coast.
"The [joint operations concept]... involves a pro-active programme, command structure and training exercises to reduce... operational hiccups and complications," the report says.
Such problems were encountered during the joint campaign at Buxton, which failed to curtail an unprecedented wave of criminal activity over the last two years.
Members of the army were especially criticised for their reportedly apathetic role in the operation by some people who claimed soldiers watched on as they were victimised.
Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon even admitted that the recent campaign did identify significant weaknesses in the concept of joint operations. He told the commission that he also subscribed to the view that the military could have exercised more responsibility and involvement.
"In light of the recent conduct of joint operations... the commission is of the view that it ought to have been apparent to the GDF that there should be regular, planned and intensive training between commanders and units of the two forces which are likely to work together, from time to time, in the conduct of internal security operations," the report said. It concludes that the Defence Board ought to give serious consideration to the role of the army alongside the police force and other civilian agencies and make concrete plans for joint training.
The commission called attention to the responsibility of the army to maintain order and the police's responsibility for public order which necessitates a regular pattern of joint training.
The law imposes a duty of maintaining order on the army, although it does not give its members public powers of arrest, detention or interrogation. The commission accepts that such an omission was deliberate and thus it draws a distinction between the duty of the army to maintain order and the duty of the police to enforce public order laws.
The report explains that parliament might have wanted the army to have a duty to maintain public order, but did not intend for its members to be empowered with, or responsible for, enforcing public law in the courts, which is a police function.
Nevertheless, the commission notes that the army was criticised for failing to arrest or detain criminals during the campaign on the East Coast, although its members enjoy no more than the private law power of civilians to arrest.
Meanwhile, it was noted that the army painted a complex picture of military operations, including countering threats of terrorism, drug trafficking, illicit-arms trafficking, uncontrolled refugee migration and trafficking in people.
The report points out that transnational threats such as these also require regular, inter-service and inter-agency training. The complaint by the Coast Guard that some agencies' responsibilities for coordinating such activities had ceased functioning at the governmental level was noted.
The commission concluded that if there are perceptions that the threats to national security have changed, there should be a commensurate change in training.