Carib Scope

作者： admin

  • Op ‘jacht’ naar een ontmoeting met Ashwin Adhin

    Op ‘jacht’ naar een ontmoeting met Ashwin Adhin

    It was early May when a promotional video popped up on my Facebook feed, leading with a portrait of Ashwin Adhin, Speaker of the National Assembly of Suriname, captioned “Suriname Man on a Mission”. The video invited me to a networking evening billed as “A Night of Connection” with Adhin, scheduled for the evening of Thursday, April 30 in Wateringen, a small town west of The Hague between Rijswijk and Naaldwijk. Local organizers Sunil Kowlesar and Hugo Sital, reported to be acquaintances of Adhin, promised attendees light snacks and drinks.

    Wateringen is not exactly known as a hub for Surinamese community events, so I looked up the venue online and was surprised to find it was a small local casual eatery called Warung Chit-Ra. It struck me as an odd choice to host a formal meeting with the sitting speaker of a foreign parliament. It seemed organizers caught wind of the confusion around the original venue, because a few days later I received the same promotional clip updated with a new location: WestCord Hotel Delft, on the same date, still free entry with complimentary food and drinks, plus a WhatsApp contact for registration.

    I seriously considered signing up. I had never met Adhin in person, and I was eager to hear his perspective on the role of the Surinamese diaspora in the Netherlands in supporting ongoing development in Suriname. Around the same time, I saw a separate announcement on LinkedIn from the Diaspora Instituut Nederland (DIN) for another meeting with Adhin, scheduled for the afternoon of Sunday May 3 at the Van der Valk Hotel near Schiphol Airport. Having never attended a DIN event before, I registered for this one instead, paying a 15-euro contribution to cover venue rental costs. This way, I figured I would get my chance to meet Adhin one way or another.

    That weekend was already shaping up to be packed: I had also received a personal invitation to the inaugural Jules Wijdenbosch Lecture, organized by diaspora group Collectief Overzee Surinamers, in Amsterdam-Zuidoost on the afternoon of Saturday May 2.

    But just as I prepared for the weekend, everything began to unravel. First, I got a message canceling the April 30 Adhin event at WestCord Hotel Delft. Then, on the morning of May 2, Surinamese outlet Starnieuws published a story in which Adhin flatly denied any involvement with the DIN event scheduled for Sunday. Notably, he made no comment at all about the canceled Delft gathering.

    Adhin told Starnieuws that with his official approval, the Surinamese ambassador to the Netherlands would host an official networking reception for diaspora organizations, entrepreneurs and professionals Sunday evening May 3 in Amsterdam. The invitation was even published alongside the Starnieuws story, open to all interested attendees. The announcement sparked heated discussion across Dutch social media. But DIN issued its own statement shortly after, confirming the Sunday afternoon event would go forward as planned regardless. By this point, Adhin had become something of an unexpected fixation for me, a constant presence in my planning for days. I found myself debating whether to rearrange my plans to attend the Amsterdam evening event.

    Then, in what was a complete surprise, as I waited for the inaugural Jules Wijdenbosch Lecture to start in Amsterdam-Zuidoost that Saturday afternoon, Adhin himself walked into the venue alongside his wife. Attendees were asked to wait a moment for the Surinamese ambassador, who was en route to the event.

    I was sitting just four rows behind Adhin, so I took the chance to introduce myself. He stood, we shook hands, I shared my name and told him it was an honor to meet him, and we chatted for a few minutes while we waited for the ambassador. It turned out Adhin had to leave early to attend a wedding in Rotterdam, which was the whole reason for his short visit to the Netherlands. I left that chance encounter delighted to have met the figure that had occupied my planning for days.

    When I arrived at the well-attended DIN event the next afternoon, I was naturally curious about how organizers would explain Adhin’s absence. All DIN chair John Brewster shared in his opening remarks was that he had received a message — which I assumed came from the Surinamese embassy — stating Adhin could not attend due to unspecified security risks. Those seeking more details were invited to ask Brewster privately after the event concluded.

    By this point, I had already drawn my own conclusion. No meeting with visiting Surinamese ministers or parliament members, particularly those affiliated with the National Democratic Party (NDP), can go forward without the explicit approval of the Surinamese ambassador in The Hague. It is important to note that Ambassador Panka is no stranger to political organization: he previously served as the NDP’s official spokesperson, and led the party’s own Information & Propaganda Institute.

    After the DIN event wrapped, I briefly considered heading to Amsterdam to attend the official evening reception and hear Adhin speak after all. But I had not registered in advance, and it seemed likely security would turn me away at the door, so I decided to head home instead.

    Late that Sunday night, as I scrolled through Facebook before bed, I came across a photo from the Rotterdam wedding Adhin had left the Amsterdam lecture to attend. He was dressed in a celebratory, tailored three-piece burgundy suit, so well-fitted and formal that for a moment I thought he was the groom. As I went to sleep with that image in my mind, I could not help but note one clear contradiction: there had been no mention of security risks at that wedding.

    This firsthand account of the chaotic sequence of events around Adhin’s short visit to the Netherlands offers a clear look at how diaspora engagement with Suriname’s ruling party works through official channels, and the frictions that arise when independent groups try to organize their own engagements.

  • Overcharged on the Bus? Report It, Says Transport Minister

    Overcharged on the Bus? Report It, Says Transport Minister

    Just days after a regulated bus fare increase took effect across the country, widespread commuter complaints about unauthorized overcharging have prompted top transport officials to roll out a public reporting mechanism and strict penalties for non-compliant operators. The new fare structure, which went into force on Monday this week, adds between 50 cents and one dollar to existing ticket prices, a change implemented to offset the ongoing spike in operating costs for bus companies. To further ease the financial pressure on these operators, the government has also approved a new $3 per gallon diesel subsidy program, funded by $1.5 million in public expenditure over a three-month period, that is scheduled to launch next Monday. Despite these policy adjustments designed to bring predictability to bus pricing, commuters have flooded transport authorities with consistent reports that some providers are charging fares far higher than the officially approved new rates. Responding to growing public outcry, Transport Minister Dr. Louis Zabaneh publicly addressed the concerns this week, confirming that the government is actively monitoring fare practices across all routes to root out non-compliance. “We have already published all official fare guidelines and our reporting channels on our official social media platforms,” Dr. Zabaneh explained in a public statement. “Commuters can call a dedicated hotline to report any instance of overcharging, and our enforcement team will launch an immediate investigation into every claim.” The minister did not leave room for ambiguity when outlining potential consequences for operators that intentionally overcharge passengers. Dr. Zabaneh confirmed that any proven violation of the approved fare structure could lead to severe action, including the full revocation of an operator’s license to provide public bus services. The government’s quick response comes as it seeks to balance support for bus operators struggling with rising fuel costs with protection for working commuters who rely on public transit for daily travel.

  • Court of Appeal overturns High Court’s ruling on ExxonMobil, EPA’s financial guarantees

    Court of Appeal overturns High Court’s ruling on ExxonMobil, EPA’s financial guarantees

    On Thursday, 7 May 2026, Guyana’s Court of Appeal delivered a unanimous landmark ruling reversing a 2023 High Court judgment that found ExxonMobil Guyana Limited and the country’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in breach of statutory and environmental permit obligations. The decision, handed down by Court President Dawn Gregory Barnes alongside Justices of Appeal Nareshwar Harnanan and Priya Sewnarine-Beharry, marks a major resolution to a high-stakes legal dispute over environmental liability rules for the country’s offshore petroleum operations.

    The case originated in 2023, when activists Frederick Collins and Godfrey Whyte brought a legal challenge against Exxon and the EPA. Then-High Court Justice Sandil Kissoon ruled in the claimants’ favor, accepting the argument that Exxon’s liability for environmental damage from its offshore work must be unlimited, and thus the financial guarantee required under the company’s environmental permit also needed to be uncapped. Justice Kissoon found that Exxon had knowingly violated its obligations by only submitting a US$2 billion capped guarantee, and the EPA had breached its own statutory duties by approving this limited financial assurance. He ordered the EPA to issue an enforcement notice forcing Exxon to secure an unlimited guarantee within 30 days, and threatened to suspend the company’s operating permit if it failed to comply.

    Both Exxon and the EPA appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, which immediately granted a stay on Justice Kissoon’s orders pending the appeal outcome. The appellate court heard full legal arguments from all involved parties in February 2026. Andrew Pollard, lead defense counsel for Exxon, outlined the court’s core findings after the ruling was released.

    Pollard explained that the appellate court drew a critical legal distinction between unlimited liability for environmental damage and the separate requirement of financial assurance. The court found that Justice Kissoon had made a legal error by conflating these two distinct concepts. Under the correct interpretation of the permit’s financial provisions, Exxon was only required to submit a guarantee for a fixed, defined amount. The court further held that the EPA retains discretionary authority under Guyana’s Environmental Protection Act and the terms of the permit to approve a capped guarantee, and Justice Kissoon had overstepped his jurisdiction by substituting his own judgment for the agency’s statutorily granted discretion.

    The ruling also confirmed that the EPA and Exxon acted appropriately in negotiating the US$2 billion guarantee, noting that Parliament had designated the EPA as the sole authorized body to make such regulatory determinations. Additionally, the court threw out Justice Kissoon’s finding that the insurance policy submitted by Exxon and approved by the EPA did not meet international petroleum industry standards, as there was no admissible evidence presented to support that conclusion. All orders issued by the High Court in 2023 were formally set aside.

    The path to the appellate ruling included a prior detour at the regional Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). The Guyana Court of Appeal initially blocked the country’s Attorney General from joining the case as a party, but the CCJ overturned that decision, emphasizing that the Attorney General is tasked with representing public interest, and this dispute carried significant public interest implications. That ruling cleared the way for the Attorney General to participate in the appellate proceedings and submit legal arguments.

    Multiple legal teams represented the diverse parties in the case: Exxon was represented by Andrew Pollard SC, Edward Luckhoo SC, and Eleanor Luckhoo; the EPA was represented by Sanjeev Datadin and Mohanie Anganoo; claimants Collins and Whyte were represented by Seenath Jairam SC, Saevion David-Longe, Melinda Janki, and Abiola Wong-Inniss; and the state was represented by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, Arud Gossai, and Shoshanna Lall.

  • Dominica joins regional push for urban climate resilience at UN House meeting in Barbados

    Dominica joins regional push for urban climate resilience at UN House meeting in Barbados

    Seven Caribbean nations have concluded a two-day regional climate resilience workshop in Bridgetown, Barbados, marking a critical step forward in translating global climate pledges into tangible action for vulnerable urban communities across the region.

    Hosted at UN House and organized by UN-Habitat’s Sustainable Urban Resilience for the Next Generation (SURGe) programme in partnership with the Government of Barbados and the UN Sub-Regional Team for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, the workshop brought together senior housing and urban development officials from Dominica, Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. Climate change focal points from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also joined the proceedings virtually.

    The gathering centered on accelerating coordinated urban climate action, with targeted focus on three high-priority areas: climate-resilient housing, critical infrastructure upgrades, and long-term resilience planning. At its conclusion, participants formally launched the Bridgetown Technical Roadmap, a country-led framework that outlines clear priorities, accountability checkpoints, and coordinated next steps for the next 12 months to guide collective action across participating nations.

    Addressing delegates at the opening ceremony, Barbados’ Minister of Housing, Lands and Maintenance Christopher Gibbs emphasized that the region can no longer rely on non-binding pledges to protect communities from climate harm. “Across the Caribbean, we have made strong climate commitments. Through our Nationally Determined Contributions, our countries have set out ambitious goals to reduce emissions, build resilience, and protect our people and economies from the impacts of climate change. But commitments alone will not protect a roof. Commitments alone will not drain a flooded road,” Gibbs said.

    Drawing lessons from recent devastating hurricane seasons, Gibbs pointed to long-neglected infrastructure gaps—particularly inadequate drainage systems—as a critical unaddressed challenge, noting the widespread flood damage seen in Jamaica following recent storm events that was amplified by poor infrastructure planning. He also highlighted housing finance as a persistent barrier to resilience, explaining that many Caribbean households still struggle to access adequate funding for climate-resilient home ownership even when they meet mortgage eligibility requirements.

    UN Resident Coordinator for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean Simon Springett praised Caribbean nations for their global climate leadership, even amid growing uncertainty around international climate finance and support. “The Caribbean is not a place that waits to be saved. The Caribbean is a place that produces solutions. It exports ideas, and it speaks time and time again with the clarity and moral force that punches profoundly above its weight in global conversations,” Springett said in his welcome address.

    Elkin Velasquez Monsalve, Regional Director of UN-Habitat for Latin America and the Caribbean, reaffirmed that all ongoing and future resilience work in the region will remain centered on national priorities and local realities. “In the Caribbean, adequate housing sits at the centre of urban climate action. This Workshop, and the work that follows, reflects exactly that conviction: country-led, anchored in multilevel governance, and grounded in the realities of each country,” he said.

    Luis Antonio Ramírez García echoed this framing, noting that housing is the most consistently and devastatingly impacted asset when climate disasters strike. “When we speak about climate change, we speak about many things: hurricanes, floods, rising seas. But what is most consistently affected, and most painfully lost, is housing. We lose our homes, our history, the very places that hold who we are, and we are left vulnerable. That is what we are here to change,” he said, confirming that the roadmap binds both participating governments and UN-Habitat to its 12-month action plan.

    One of the workshop’s landmark outcomes is the Caribbean Urban Climate Action Collective Baseline, the first regional self-assessment of its kind that analyzes how Caribbean nations are currently integrating climate considerations into housing and urban planning policy. The assessment maps key barriers to climate-resilient urban development and identifies priority areas where UN-Habitat will provide targeted technical support to participating nations over the coming year.

    Beyond the roadmap and baseline assessment, delegates also used the event to exchange practical experiences and solutions for managing densely populated urban areas and upgrading living conditions in climate-vulnerable communities. Three core outputs from the initiative are expected: the baseline assessment, the Bridgetown Technical Roadmap, and the SURGe Caribbean Background Paper, which will document regional needs and priorities for global stakeholders.

    The work launched in Bridgetown is expected to inform global climate and urban policy discussions at the upcoming 13th World Urban Forum and the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (COP31). It also lays the foundation for a long-term technical partnership between UN-Habitat and Caribbean governments, with implementation of the roadmap’s commitments supported by the United Nations Country Team for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, which collaborates with sub-regional governments to advance national development priorities.

  • Worrell: Currency shifts won’t affect Caribbean economies

    Worrell: Currency shifts won’t affect Caribbean economies

    Long-established market forces have cemented the United States dollar’s position as the undisputed global standard of value, and recent fluctuations in other major currencies will bring no meaningful economic shifts to Caribbean nations, according to a prominent former central banking leader from the region.

    Dr Delisle Worrell, former governor of the Central Bank of Barbados and a veteran International Monetary Fund consultant, laid out this argument in the May issue of his regularly published Economic Letter, which carries the headline *The Dollar is the World’s Standard of Value*.

    Worrell stressed that Caribbean economies are structured entirely around the US dollar for cross-border activity. Every key external transaction for the region—from pricing tourist packages to settling export and import trades, to securing foreign debt—uses the US dollar as the benchmark, and all clearing processes run through dollar-denominated accounts hosted by American commercial banks and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Against this backdrop, recent upward movements in the value of sterling, the Canadian dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the Chinese renminbi will not alter core economic conditions for Caribbean countries, he said.

    The former governor, who also founded the Central Bank of Barbados’ research department, pointed out that the primary spillover harm from today’s global economic instability hitting Caribbean nations is imported inflation. He outlined a clear threshold for policy response: only countries where governments hold a fiscal surplus of revenue over current expenditure exceeding 2% of GDP have the capacity to roll out targeted subsidies to cap fuel and essential goods prices. For all other regional economies, there are few policy tools available to ease inflationary pressure, he added.

    Worrell also issued a strong caution against one commonly proposed policy adjustment: revaluing domestic currencies to counteract inflation brought in from global markets. He explained that if a central bank drew down its foreign currency reserves to push the domestic exchange rate higher, market participants including commercial banks, import and export firms, and tourism operators would almost certainly hoard the cheapened US dollars instead of passing the exchange rate benefits through to consumers and other end users.

    Global monetary data backs his broader claim about the dollar’s dominance: out of 180 legally recognized sovereign currencies across the world, the value of all 179 non-US currencies is defined relative to the dollar, Worrell noted. This status quo is not dependent on US government policy, shifts in the US or global economy, or price movements of gold, oil or other commodities, he said. It also has not been dislodged by the emergence of cryptocurrencies built on blockchain technology or any other fintech innovation. “All economic values are based on the dollar,” he concluded.

    Worrell frames the dollar’s global benchmark status as a historical convention, comparable to the widespread adoption of Greenwich Mean Time as a global time standard. He traced the 80-year evolution of this arrangement: after World War II ended in 1945, the global economy split into two separate geopolitical and economic blocs, with the United States holding overwhelming sway over trade and finance in the Western democratic sphere. This established the dollar as the reference currency for all nations outside the Soviet-led bloc. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, the dollar’s use as a global reference spread to every corner of the world.

    Crucially, Worrell emphasized that the dollar’s dominance emerged from organic market practice rather than top-down policy mandate from the United States or global institutions. Individual consumers, multinational companies and financial institutions across the world have consistently chosen the dollar as the go-to reference for settling cross-border transactions. He offered a common example: a consumer in Jamaica purchasing goods from Chinese suppliers will almost always first calculate the cost in US dollars before converting the total to Jamaican dollars for their final budgeting.

    This entrenched market preference has outlasted every challenge to the dollar’s status, Worrell argued. Even as major economies including post-war Germany, Japan and most recently China rose to become the world’s second-largest economy, global markets have retained the dollar as the primary settlement currency. The dollar’s benchmark position also emerged unscathed from the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent downgrading of market confidence in US government creditworthiness.

    Today, despite growing uncertainty around the direction of US policy and the global economic volatility this unpredictability generates, there is no evidence of a broad global shift away from the dollar toward the euro, renminbi or any other alternative currency to serve as the universal standard of value, Worrell said.

  • Temporary closure and interruption in cash services

    Temporary closure and interruption in cash services

    The Magistracy Department has issued a public advisory confirming that all court-based cashing services will be completely unavailable to the general public on Wednesday, 13 May 2026. This planned, temporary service pause is not the result of an operational error or system failure, but rather a deliberate step to make space for a mandatory, institution-wide Cashiers’ Training program. The department emphasized that this training initiative is designed to upskill all cashiering staff, with the explicit goal of boosting both the speed of service delivery and the overall quality of support offered to community members accessing court facilities. Regular cashing operations are scheduled to fully resume at all court offices starting at 8:00 a.m. local time on Thursday, 14 May 2026. In closing its advisory, the Magistracy Department extended a sincere apology to all residents and visitors who may experience disruption or inconvenience to their planned court-related business during this one-day suspension. This advisory is issued by the Magistracy Department. NOW Grenada notes that it does not take responsibility for the opinions, statements, or third-party contributed content shared on its platform, and provides a reporting channel for users to flag any abusive content.

  • Demerara Bank loses bid for High Court to throw out WIN members’ account closure cases

    Demerara Bank loses bid for High Court to throw out WIN members’ account closure cases

    On Thursday, 7 May 2026, Guyana’s Full Court delivered a landmark ruling against Demerara Bank, dismissing the financial institution’s appeal that sought to block six senior members of the country’s main opposition party We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) from legally challenging the bank’s unexplained closure of their personal accounts.

    The three-judge panel — led by Chief Justice Navindra Singh, alongside Justices Deborah Kumar-Chetty and Nigel Niles — upheld the lower court’s original decision, ordering Demerara Bank to submit a formal defensive affidavit to the court by 21 May 2026. The ruling also mandated that the bank pay 100,000 Guyanese dollars in legal costs to each of the six claimants by 1 June 2026. The six affected WIN members are Gobin Harbajhan, Denodra Park, Dexter George, Joel Ramesh, Lester Benjamin, and Denitta Parkes, who are represented by private attorney Darren Wade. Demerara Bank’s legal team was led by Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Vieria, and A. Dev.

    In its written judgment, the Full Court panel clarified that Demerara Bank’s procedural choice to pursue a strike-out application against the claimants’ Fixed Date Application (FDA), rather than filing a substantive defense directly, caused unnecessary delays in the legal process. “The appellant’s decision to challenge the FDA by way of a strike-out application has protracted the resolution of this matter,” the judgment read. “When weighing the core arguments presented to the lower court, we find that a defensive affidavit should have been filed from the outset, allowing the trial judge to assess the substantive claim on its legal merits.”

    The court further noted that Demerara Bank failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the opposition members’ FDA was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an improper abuse of court process. The panel confirmed that the claimants had raised an arguable legal case with reasonable grounds to bring their challenge, rejecting the bank’s assertion that the suit had no legitimate path to success.

    Demerara Bank’s appeal originated from a dispute over the unexplained account closures. Instead of responding to the claimants’ FDA with a formal substantive defense, the bank opted to file a motion to have the entire claim struck from the court docket. The bank’s core arguments included that the FDA did not disclose a valid legal cause of action, that the claim was legally misconceived, and that the requested relief could not be granted under Guyanese law. Demerara Bank also argued that there was no connection between the account closures and Guyana’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Financing Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act, that no private legal claim could arise from alleged breaches of that legislation, that the claimants lacked legal standing to bring the suit because the bank is not subject to public law remedies, that no implicit duty of good faith exists in customer banking contracts, and that the bank owes no fiduciary duty of trust or confidence when making the decision to close a customer’s account.

    Counsel for the six opposition members pushed back against all of the bank’s claims, arguing that a clear legal cause of action does exist. The claimants contend that an implicit duty of good faith is a standard component of all banking contractual relationships in Guyana, and that Demerara Bank breached that fundamental overriding duty when it shut down their accounts without any warning or explanation.

  • Economist Calls for CARICOM Unity on US Surcharge Move

    Economist Calls for CARICOM Unity on US Surcharge Move

    As the United States gears up to implement a 10 percent import surcharge via World Trade Organization (WTO) channels, a prominent Belizean economist is sounding the alarm over the disproportionate harm this measure could inflict on small, trade-dependent economies across the Caribbean, calling for coordinated collective action from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) bloc.

    Dr. Phillip Castillo, a local economic expert, has pushed back against the core justification the US has offered for the new tariff: addressing persistent balance-of-payments deficits. Castillo argues that this rationale falls apart when considering the unparalleled global dominance of the US dollar, which puts Washington in a unique position to avoid the kinds of balance-of-payment crises that plague smaller nations. In an exclusive interview with The Reporter, he broke down the specific risks for Belize, noting that the Central American nation already runs a substantial trade deficit with the United States — importing far more American goods than it is able to export to the large North American market.

    For Belize, whose export volume to the US is already limited, the new 10 percent surcharge would act as yet another prohibitive trade barrier, further squeezing domestic producers’ access to American consumers and worsening the country’s already lopsided trade balance. Beyond the immediate impact on Belize, Castillo emphasizes that the moment underscores a long-running need for stronger regional coordination among CARICOM member states. Small individual Caribbean nations lack the economic clout to negotiate effectively with major global powers like the United States, but a unified CARICOM bloc would carry far more leverage to push back against harmful trade measures, he explained.

    Castillo also questioned the broader credibility of the US’s decision to seek WTO approval for the surcharge, pointing out that Washington has a recent history of imposing unilateral tariffs on dozens of countries without going through the WTO’s multilateral dispute and approval process. The current formal application to the global trade body, he suggested, looks less like a commitment to multilateral process and more like an attempt to retroactively grant international legitimacy to a trade policy that fits a pattern of unilateral American action.

    The US formally notified the WTO of its plan to impose the 10 percent surcharge earlier this year, invoking Section 122 of the 1974 US Trade Act to back its claim that the measure is necessary to correct balance-of-payments imbalances. WTO members are scheduled to begin formal consultations with Washington on the proposal in the coming weeks, a process Castillo says is not without opportunity for small economies. Even with the odds stacked against them, the multilateral consultation process creates a formal space for smaller nations to collectively air their opposition and potentially shift American trade policy before the surcharge is implemented, he noted.

    Still, Castillo warned that if the US moves forward with the measure despite global pushback, the global trading system will face deeper disruptions, with the worst fallout falling on vulnerable small economies like Belize that lack the economic size and diversification to absorb external trade shocks. The proposed surcharge comes at a particularly fragile moment for the global economy, which is already grappling with skyrocketing oil prices tied to escalating geopolitical tensions between the US, Israel and Iran, as well as lingering unresolved tariff disputes and persistent supply chain disruptions that have left global growth already teetering.

  • One in custody following massive fire in Roseau

    One in custody following massive fire in Roseau

    A devastating large-scale fire swept through a commercial district in Roseau this week, leaving nine buildings completely destroyed and causing widespread damage to local businesses and community infrastructure. Law enforcement officials have confirmed that a single man has been taken into police custody as authorities work to unpack the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the blaze.

    The fire broke out at the intersection of Great Marlborough Street and Upper Lane, a busy corridor that hosts a mix of professional offices, retail spaces, and local dining establishments. Early damage assessments released by Deputy Fire Chief Matthew Prosper confirm that several high-profile local properties were lost in the fire, including the office of local attorney Joshua Francis, the well-known French Connection Building, and the popular local eatery Family Restaurant.

    In comments following the emergency response, Prosper characterized the destruction as a devastating blow to the Roseau community, noting that the loss of these buildings will have long-lasting impacts on business owners, employees, and residents who rely on the neighborhood’s services. Emergency crews have completed their initial on-site response work, clearing debris and securing the burned area to prevent additional safety hazards.

    As of the latest update, official investigations into the cause and origin of the fire remain ongoing. Authorities have not yet released additional details about the person taken into custody, including potential charges or a possible motive for the blaze, and are asking any members of the public who witnessed activity in the area before the fire started to contact local law enforcement with information.

  • Church Leaders Push Removal of Belmopan Billboard

    Church Leaders Push Removal of Belmopan Billboard

    A heated public debate has broken out in Belmopan, Belize, after a prominent alcohol advertisement placed at one of the capital’s busiest intersections drew fierce backlash from church leaders and local residents, who argue the ad objectifies women and exacerbates existing public health and safety crises tied to substance abuse in the country.

    The center of the controversy is a large outdoor billboard located near Belmopan’s main traffic light, a high-traffic spot visited daily by hundreds of commuters and family groups. The advertisement features well-known Trinidadian musician Nailah Blackman holding an alcoholic beverage, and has split public opinion across religious, business and digital communities, touching on sensitive questions of public decency, advertising regulation, and the bounds of free expression.

    Leading the charge for the billboard’s immediate removal is Pastor Louis Wade, a Church Senator and owner of local media outlet PLUS TV Belize. One of the most vocal critics of the ad, Wade argues that the content crosses lines of accepted community standards and public morality, creating a clear justification for intervention by national political leaders and Belmopan’s municipal government.

    Wade contends that the ad further normalizes the sexualization of women in public spaces, and accused the brand behind the campaign of predatory, aggressive alcohol marketing that also normalizes harmful alcohol and marijuana culture. He went a step further, connecting the problematic imagery to the nation’s broader, long-running social challenges, including high rates of domestic violence, sexual abuse and assault, and widespread alcohol dependency.

    “Belize already fights an uphill battle against social harms stemming from substance abuse,” Wade explained, noting that the billboard’s prominent location, visible to every person entering and moving through the capital, makes its presence particularly inappropriate. He added that the ad offends the core values and sensibilities of what he called “respectable Belizeans.”

    The first public objection to the advertisement was actually raised by another faith leader, Pastor Adam Klausing, who shared his concerns in a viral social media post that amassed tens of thousands of interactions and brought the controversy to national attention. In his post, Klausing questioned whether the imagery was appropriate for the main public entryway to Belize’s capital city, especially given that the area is regularly used by families with children.