JFJ questions lethal force and scene handling after Granville shooting as Parliament weighs Integrity Commission reports

Human rights advocates are pressing for answers after a Jamaica Constabulary Force member fatally shot Latoya Bulkan, known as Buju, in Granville, St. James, on Sunday.

In a statement on Monday, Jamaicans for Justice said it had reviewed widely circulated videos and CCTV of the encounter. The group said that while a thorough, independent investigation must establish the full facts, early details and the footage are deeply troubling and have shocked many Jamaicans.

JFJ pointed to the JCF use-of-force policy and international standards, which hold that force should be a last resort and used only when strictly necessary. Officers must ensure any force is proportional to the threat faced, lawful, and accountable, the organisation said, adding that someone involved in an altercation with police should not die unless there is an imminent threat to life. It also cited policy stating that a firearm must not be discharged at a vehicle merely because it has moved. The group said the case raises serious questions about proportional lethal force and the risk that such actions may be seen as extrajudicial.

A separate concern, JFJ said, is how Bulkan’s body was handled after she was shot. Videos appear to show officers removing her from a vehicle and placing her in the back of a police van. JCF policy requires post-incident steps to preserve the scene and protect evidence for investigators. JFJ said the handling of her remains appears to fall short of those duties, may compromise the investigation, and fails to respect basic dignity in death.

The group linked the case to a pattern it has long tracked: gaps between initial accounts of fatal encounters and evidence that surfaces when independent footage appears. It cited figures showing 130 civilians shot and killed by security forces so far in 2026, including 15 fatal shootings in May, compared with 129 in the same period of 2025—a year that ended with 311 fatal police shootings, the highest tally in more than 15 years. Most of those incidents, JFJ said, had no independent visual record.

JFJ welcomed the JCF’s purchase of 1,000 body-worn cameras but questioned deployment rules. It said the Granville incident unfolded during a community protest—a high-contact setting where cameras should have been in use—and noted that the Independent Commission of Investigations confirmed none of the three officers on crowd-control duty wore one. While JFJ welcomed the swift interdiction of the officer involved, it urged consistent camera use nationwide, stressing that accountability cannot depend on bystander video. INDECOM has opened a probe; JFJ urged a speedy, transparent review of the shooting, scene management, and body handling. It extended condolences to Bulkan’s family and loved ones, who were reportedly travelling in connection with a protest over the killing of 17-year-old T.J. Edwards by security forces about a week earlier.

In separate developments, Parliament said on Monday it has received five reports from the Integrity Commission and is addressing them under internal processes guided by the presiding officers. The Integrity Commission Act sets no fixed timeline for tabling. A House statement confirmed the reports have not yet been laid in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Citing confidentiality obligations before tabling, Parliament said it would neither confirm nor deny the subject, contents, findings, recommendations, or whether any person or entity is named.

The statement followed opposition leader Mark Golding’s demand that an alleged Integrity Commission report into the Firearm Licensing Authority be tabled at the next House sitting. Golding had rejected suggestions that ongoing court matters justify withholding it. Parliament said it is aware of related correspondence and court proceedings but stressed that it regulates its own proceedings, including how documents submitted to it are handled. It added that reports will be dealt with in line with constitutional, legal, and procedural duties, and that no further substantive comment would be made at this time.