作者： admin

The highly anticipated 36th edition of the St James Children’s Carnival, scheduled for February 8, faces significant financial challenges that threaten its continuation. This beloved junior masquerade parade, which draws hundreds of young participants and thousands of spectators along Western Main Road, St James, requires urgent sponsorship to proceed.

Organized jointly by the St James Community Improvement Committee and the St James Children’s Carnival Committee, the event has historically relied on funding from the National Carnival Commission’s Regional Carnival Committee with additional support from local businesses. Despite persistent financial obstacles, organizers are working diligently to preserve this cultural tradition.

This year’s celebration, themed ‘Colour Wee Carnival,’ features multiple competitive categories including King & Queen of the Bands, Band of the Year in various size divisions, Male & Female Individual of the Year, Best Use of Local Materials, Best Traditional Mas, and the special Yvonne Mungal Challenge Trophy open category.

Registration opened on January 12 at 16 Ranjit Kumar Street, St James, with additional forms available at TTCBA’s secretariat in Queen’s Park Savannah and Crosby’s on Western Main Road. The registration deadline is February 2, with no late entries permitted.

The event’s historical significance was highlighted by former NCC chairman Winston Peters, who in 2020 emphasized that the carnival provides children with “an extra day to jump, exhibit, palance and ramajay.” Former NCC CEO Colin Lucas further noted that children’s carnival ensures the cultural tradition continues “from one generation to another.”

The St James Children’s Carnival has grown to become an integral component of Trinidad and Tobago’s Carnival celebrations, now rivaling adult events in both costume artistry and attendance. With over 50 registered bands and 200+ individual participants, the event serves as both cultural preservation and community building opportunity, bringing together families, friends, and visitors for a day of creative expression and celebration.

Trinidad and Tobago’s recently enacted 2025 Summary Offences Amendment Act, designed to regulate fireworks usage through permit requirements, faces substantial criticism for its inherent contradictions and inadequate enforcement mechanisms. While the legislation aims to protect vulnerable populations and animals, experts identify significant flaws that may undermine its intended purpose.

The amendment mandates that fireworks users obtain permits from the police commissioner, yet creates explicit exemptions during national holidays at 8-9 PM and on Old Year’s Eve from 11:30 PM to 12:30 AM. These waivers directly conflict with the legislation’s protective goals, as they authorize heightened fireworks activity precisely when traditional celebrations like Divali, Christmas, and Old Year’s observances occur—periods when pyrotechnic usage traditionally peaks.

Environmental and health concerns present additional challenges. The law permits fireworks usage within 0.5 kilometers of sensitive areas including hospitals, farms, forests, parks, and zoos, potentially exposing humans and animals to dangerous pollutants. Scientific evidence indicates that fireworks emit strontium, barium, and aluminum particles that can trigger respiratory issues such as coughing and breathing difficulties. A 2020 Environmental Management Authority survey confirmed that fireworks exposure causes sleep deprivation, irritability, and anxiety in humans, while animals experience panic, trauma, and habitat displacement.

The amendment’s enforcement mechanisms appear particularly insufficient. Violators face mere $450 fines—a sum unlikely to deter dedicated fireworks enthusiasts—while permits cost only $100, making legal compliance relatively inexpensive. This contrasts sharply with the United Kingdom’s model, which imposes fines equivalent to thousands of dollars for illegal fireworks usage.

Legal experts question whether the amendment will achieve meaningful change, noting that Trinidad and Tobago already had fireworks regulations under the Explosives Act. The Supreme Court of India’s recent recognition that fireworks bans often create unpoliceable informal economies raises relevant concerns about enforcement practicality in the Trinidad and Tobago context.

Commentators suggest that rather than implementing potentially redundant legislation, the government should convene a parliamentary joint committee to comprehensively examine human-induced noise and air pollution impacts on all living creatures. Such dialogue should include environmental NGOs, religious groups, and industry stakeholders to develop more effective solutions grounded in intelligent discourse rather than political expediency.

The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of Trinidad and Tobago has issued an official alert regarding fraudulent information circulating through digital channels. On Sunday, the ministry formally discredited a fabricated media release titled ‘Revised Operating Hours of Licensing Division’ that has been spreading across online platforms.

In an unequivocal statement, the ministry confirmed that all Licensing Division offices throughout the dual-island nation maintain their standard operational schedule of Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No changes to these hours have been implemented or are currently planned.

The ministry emphasized the critical importance of obtaining information through authorized channels only. Citizens were expressly advised to disregard the misleading notice and instead rely exclusively on the ministry’s official communication platforms for verified updates and announcements. This precautionary measure aims to prevent public confusion and ensure that citizens receive accurate information regarding government services.

This incident highlights the ongoing challenge of digital misinformation affecting public institutions. The ministry’s proactive response demonstrates its commitment to transparency and accurate information dissemination while safeguarding citizens from potentially disruptive false claims.

In a landmark property rights decision, Trinidad and Tobago’s High Court has resolved a decades-long dispute between Dipcon Engineering Services Ltd and the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) regarding ownership of over eight acres of valuable State land in Valsayn South.

Justice Westmin James delivered a comprehensive 50-page ruling establishing that Dipcon lawfully acquired ownership through adverse possession, having maintained open, exclusive, and continuous control of the property for well beyond the statutory limitation period. The court determined this extended occupation effectively extinguished the State’s title, granting the engineering company legal entitlement to the property.

The contested parcel at Real Springs East, Valsayn South, near the Southern Main Road, became the center of a complex legal battle. Dipcon asserted continuous occupation since May 1981, while the Attorney General and HDC maintained the land was acquired by the State in 1979 for public purposes and subsequently vested in state housing authorities.

The court meticulously examined the property’s history, noting that Dipcon initially entered the land without permission to support construction works on the Valsayn housing project. Evidence demonstrated the company conducted extensive improvements including clearing and filling approximately seven acres, erecting buildings and perimeter fencing, installing utilities, operating a concrete batching plant, and maintaining continuous security and commercial use over several decades.

A pivotal legal question addressed whether occupation time while the land was State-owned could count toward adverse possession after transfer to a non-State entity. Justice James ruled that Dipcon’s possession satisfied the applicable limitation period and that subsequent vesting in housing authorities did not invalidate accrued rights.

The court rejected arguments that Dipcon lacked necessary intention to possess the land, finding the company’s conduct demonstrated clear intent to control and exclude others, including paper title holders. The judge noted that physical acts of possession were “substantial and enduring” and represented “acts of dominion” rather than transient or equivocal use.

While upholding Dipcon’s claim against HDC, the court dismissed the corporation’s counter-claim against the engineering firm and similarly dismissed Dipcon’s claim against the Attorney General. The ruling establishes significant precedent regarding adverse possession rights against state entities in Trinidad and Tobago.

In a significant judicial ruling, the High Court has rejected a medical doctor’s attempt to advance his judicial review claim against the Children’s Authority without the agency’s defense. Justice Robin Mohammed delivered the comprehensive written decision that simultaneously denied the Authority’s motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings, ensuring the constitutional challenge will be heard on its substantive merits.

The case originated from the Children’s Authority’s August 16, 2022 decision to remove the physician’s two minor children following allegations of abuse. The doctor subsequently filed a fixed-date claim on December 21, 2022, contending the removal was unreasonable, arbitrary, and violated his constitutional rights to due process and family life under sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the Constitution.

Justice Mohammed characterized the doctor’s request for undefended proceedings as ‘draconian’ in nature, noting that such relief effectively amounted to a default judgment—expressly prohibited in fixed-date claims under Civil Proceedings Rules. However, the court demonstrated judicial flexibility by granting the Authority’s application for extended filing deadlines, acknowledging confusion regarding whether the agency qualified as ‘the state’ for procedural purposes, compounded by staffing transitions within its legal team.

The court determined that while the Authority missed the standard 28-day response window, the delay was relatively brief and unintentional. Justice Mohammed emphasized that the public significance of child protection matters and the seriousness of constitutional allegations warranted hearing the Authority’s evidence. ‘The prejudice to the claimant of a short further delay is outweighed by the greater prejudice to the administration of justice in deciding such a claim without the defendant’s evidence,’ the judgment stated.

Additionally, the court rejected arguments that the judicial review constituted an abuse of process or improper collateral attack on prior Children’s Court and Court of Appeal decisions that had upheld interim wardship orders. The ruling distinguished the current proceedings as addressing distinct public law and constitutional issues regarding the lawfulness of the initial removal—matters not previously adjudicated.

The court also denied an alternative application to stay proceedings pending parallel Family Court actions, reasoning that such suspension would unjustly delay resolution of constitutional complaints without advancing judicial efficiency. The Authority must now file its response affidavit within 21 days, with the case scheduled for case management conference on February 5. Costs determinations were reserved pending final resolution of the substantive claim.