{"id":14613,"date":"2026-07-13T19:44:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T00:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/expat-times.com\/panama\/?p=14613"},"modified":"2026-07-13T11:08:01","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T16:08:01","slug":"the-battle-for-the-badge-mayor-creates-private-police-army-as-supreme-court-steps-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/expat-times.com\/panama\/crime-safety\/the-battle-for-the-badge-mayor-creates-private-police-army-as-supreme-court-steps-in\/","title":{"rendered":"The Battle for the Badge: Mayor Creates Private Police Army as Supreme Court Steps In"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The creation of a municipal police force in Panama City<\/strong> has sparked a legal battle that now sits before the nation’s highest court. The Supreme Court<\/strong> of Panama<\/a> recently admitted a lawsuit filed by the Ministry of Public Security Panama<\/a> seeking to nullify the agreement that transformed the city’s former Department of Surveillance into a full-fledged Municipal Police force. This dispute raises fundamental questions about who controls law enforcement in the capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The controversy centers on Agreement No. 162, approved in June 2025 by the Municipal Council at the request of Mayor Mayer Mizrachi. This measure reorganized the city’s security personnel into a more professional and hierarchical structure with expanded responsibilities. But the national government argues this move oversteps constitutional boundaries. The Ministry of Public Security contends that only state security agencies should hold certain policing powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the ministry filed its case, the National Police<\/a> had already tried to block the agreement through a separate constitutional challenge. Attorney Abraham Ricardo Rosas Ara\u00faz filed that initial lawsuit on behalf of the police force. The court rejected that bid, notifying the Mayor’s Office of the decision on June 11, 2026. Undeterred, the Ministry of Public Security took a different legal approach. Lawyer Argentina Barrera presented a nullity claim before the Third Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court<\/strong>, which accepted the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n