作者： admin

Trinidad and Tobago’s main opposition political party, the People’s National Movement (PNM), has put the ruling People’s National Congress (UNC)-led administration under pressure over three high-stakes issues during a post-General Council press briefing held at the party’s Port of Spain headquarters, Balisier House. PNM Chairman Marvin Gonzales led the questioning, flanked by deputy chairman Sanjiv Boodhu and Diego Martin West Member of Parliament Hans des Vignes, opening with demands for clarity on the unexplained absence of top law enforcement official Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro.

Gonzales directly addressed Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander, calling for public answers to four core questions: Where is Commissioner Guevarro currently located? Is he still within Trinidad and Tobago’s national jurisdiction? If he has left the country, when did his departure take place? And has an acting commissioner been formally appointed to carry out the role’s responsibilities during his absence?

Citing unconfirmed intelligence received by the PNM, Gonzales claimed Guevarro had already left the country, and alleged that the Police Service Commission (PSC), the body constitutionally tasked with overseeing police leadership appointments, had failed to fulfill its legal obligation to name an interim replacement. He also called on Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who serves as chair of the National Security Council, to issue a public explanation for the lack of transparency around the absence.

A senior, anonymous police source later confirmed that Guevarro had been granted emergency personal leave, but could not verify whether the commissioner had traveled abroad. This is not the first time Guevarra has been out of the country: in October 2025, during an official trip to an international law enforcement conference in Denver, Colorado, Deputy Commissioner Junior Benjamin was formally appointed acting commissioner for the full week of Guevarro’s absence, from October 16 to 22.

Shifting focus to the government’s proposed artificial intelligence data center project in Golconda, Gonzales launched a scathing attack, labeling the plan “absolutely ridiculous” and questioning whether the administration has followed proper legal and procedural protocols. He said the government has failed to answer critical public questions about the project, including what environmental impact assessments have been completed, whether the region can support the facility’s significant water demand, and what approvals have been secured from relevant regulatory bodies.

Gonzales highlighted growing global pushback against large-scale data centers, noting that jurisdictions across the United States, Europe, China, and the United Kingdom have introduced new restrictions or even bans on the facilities over documented harms to local communities and livelihoods. He questioned whether Trinidad and Tobago was being positioned as a “dumping ground” for high-impact commercial projects that other nations have rejected, and criticized the government for failing to conduct meaningful consultations with local residents before announcing the plan.

He went further to accuse Energy Minister Roodal Moonilal, who has publicly championed the project, of acting irresponsibly and violating his oath of office, which requires all ministers to uphold the country’s constitution and laws. Gonzales warned that the PNM would take an uncompromising stance on the issue, and pledged to defend Golconda residents if Moonilal continues to fail to represent the interests of his constituency.

The final issue raised at the press conference centered on a sealed unexplained wealth case linked to PNM headquarters at Balisier House. Gonzales accused ruling party Senator Anil Roberts of breaking court-imposed gag rules by discussing details of the sealed court documents during a recent appearance on state-owned television and radio. He confirmed that the PNM would not deviate from legal protocol by discussing the party’s legal strategy or trying the case in public, despite Roberts’ public comments.

When asked whether the PNM feared that the case would lead to the public disclosure of the party’s donors and financiers, Gonzales acknowledged that many political contributors expect and deserve confidentiality for their personal information and business interests. He noted that direct donations from members of the public at Balisier House have been a longstanding practice for the PNM, as they are for all major political parties in the country.

Gonzales alleged that the UNC administration’s push to unmask PNM donors is rooted in political retaliation, arguing that the government’s goal is to intimidate current and potential supporters and cut off the PNM’s access to campaign funding. He framed the move as more than just an attack on the opposition: “This is not only an attack on the PNM, it is an attack against the democracy of Trinidad and Tobago, and an attempt by the UNC Government to establish a one-party state in this country,” he said.

He argued that efforts to deter private donations to the opposition directly undermines democratic competition by limiting the PNM’s ability to carry out its political work, and urged all citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to recognize the threat to core democratic principles, regardless of their political alignment.

A senior retired Caribbean judicial figure has reignited debate over regional governance of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), urging an independent judicial inquiry to investigate the court’s internal administrative processes amid damaging public allegations against its sitting president. Former Senate president and retired Appeal Court judge Timothy Hamel-Smith has publicly argued that a formal probe is non-negotiable to preserve public trust in the CCJ, the region’s premier appellate and constitutional court.

A heritage protection dispute has emerged between Trinidad and Tobago’s National Trust and the country’s Parliament, centered on unauthorised damage to a 230-year-old historic fountain located within the grounds of Port of Spain’s iconic Cabildo Building. In a formal four-page correspondence addressed to House Clerk Brian Caesar and dated August 3, 2026, National Trust Council representative Mark Franco has laid out the organisation’s non-negotiable position: only a complete, authentic restoration of the nationally protected heritage structure meets legal and heritage standards, and any lesser outcome would weaken both the rule of law and the country’s commitment to preserving its historical patrimony.

The formal demand comes after a joint inspection of the Cabildo Building on July 23, followed by closed-door discussions between National Trust officials and parliamentary representatives. Franco opened the letter by reaffirming the legal status of the site: the Cabildo Building, completed in 1802, is designated a Grade II Property of Interest under the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago Act, a classification that extends statutory protection to every significant feature of the site, including the rear courtyard fountain at the center of the dispute.

Franco went on to outline the clear legal framework governing the site. Section 27 of the National Trust Act explicitly criminalises any alteration, damage, or destruction of a listed heritage property without prior written approval from the organisation, and grants courts the authority to order full compensation for repairs or restoration. “Restoration is not a remedy the Trust invented; it is the solution Parliament itself wrote into law,” Franco noted, adding that the organisation is only seeking the outcome already laid out as the standard consequence of unauthorised works under existing legislation. The core legal issue at hand, the Trust emphasised, is the complete lack of prior consultation or written approval for the works that caused the damage. While the organisation has not made any claims of bad faith on the part of Parliament, the absence of required consent is legally definitive in this case.

Crucially, Franco stressed that Parliament itself is not exempt from the requirements of the law. Section 3(1) of the Act explicitly binds the State to its provisions, meaning no government department, agency, or branch of the legislature can ignore its heritage protection obligations. “Parliament intentionally gave this legislation constitutional weight, and this is an opportunity to show it abides by the laws it has created,” Franco wrote. He added that upholding the requirement for full restoration would do more to bolster public trust in the rule of law than almost any other action, while failing to do so would erode that trust more than any other omission.

Beyond the legal dispute, the letter underscores the irreplaceable historical significance of both the building and the damaged fountain. The Cabildo Building is the only remaining example of 19th century colonial Spanish tropical civic architecture in Trinidad and Tobago, the sole surviving structure of its type from the period. The fountain, which is just years shy of its 230th anniversary, is an integral part of the building’s original 1802 design. It remains a functional example of Moorish-influenced hydraulic engineering, capturing rainwater from the courtyard and roof and directing it through brick-lined drainage channels running beneath the structure. Most notably, the hand-hewn stone blocks surrounding the fountain were cut by enslaved laborers working at the Laventille quarry. “Their destruction is not merely a loss to our built architecture; it is the erasure of ancestral evidence that no amount of money can ever replace,” Franco wrote.

The organisation has warned that time is critical for a successful authentic restoration. Every day that removed original stones and broken basin fragments remain unsecured and unprotected, the chance of a true, historically accurate restoration shrinks, making immediate action to secure the surviving original fabric a top priority.

While Franco acknowledged that full restoration will require significant public expenditure, he argued that the long-term costs of leaving the damage unaddressed would be far greater. Accepting the current damaged state, he warned, would set a dangerous precedent that would allow future violations of heritage protection laws to be waved through after unauthorised work is already completed. If that precedent stands, the national register of protected heritage properties would only offer protection on paper, with no real enforcement power.

Franco went on to outline the full range of consequences that would follow a failure to carry out full restoration: a damaging legal precedent for all future protected heritage sites, a systemic weakening of the rule of law across the country, damage to the National Trust’s credibility as a statutory heritage regulator, harm to Trinidad and Tobago’s compliance obligations under the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, and widespread erosion of public confidence in government accountability. If the State itself violates the laws that bind it and then avoids the legislatively required remedy, Franco argued, the moral authority of the State to enforce regulatory laws against private citizens would be severely undermined. The letter also warned that leaving the damage unresolved could weaken any future World Heritage nomination the country submits for its cultural sites.

Reflecting on the Cabildo Building’s history, Franco noted that the structure was previously saved from decline through public restoration efforts. For the current government to damage what a previous administration restored, and then refuse to make amends, would be a damaging legacy no public institution should want to leave behind. Conversely, moving forward with decisive full restoration would send a clear message that the Republic honors both its laws and its irreplaceable cultural and historical patrimony.

To resolve the dispute, the National Trust has put forward six specific demands for Parliament to act: immediately halt all further work that could impact the remaining historic fabric of the fountain and building, secure and properly store all original material removed from the fountain during the unauthorised works, conduct a joint conservation assessment between the Trust and parliamentary teams, develop and fully fund a comprehensive authentic restoration plan, agree to a firm implementation timetable for the restoration within 14 days, and adopt a permanent formal protocol requiring mandatory consultation with the National Trust before any work is undertaken on state-owned listed heritage properties.

A growing legal crisis has emerged over systemic failures in providing court-appointed legal representation to low-income individuals held under preventive detention orders (PDOs), with attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan warning that an entire group of disadvantaged detainees are being stripped of their constitutional right to challenge their custody.

Ramkhalwhan laid out the allegations in an August 14 pre-action protocol letter addressed to Attorney General John Jeremie, Review Tribunal chairman David Alexander, and Legal Aid and Advisory Authority chairman Renuka Rambhajan, outlining the case of his client Jamaalee Wilson, a 20-year-old man held at the Eastern Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre since July 18 under a PDO signed by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander. The minister’s order alleges Wilson is a senior member of an organized criminal gang linked to firearms, violent offenses including home invasions and armed robberies, and imminent plans to escalate attacks on the public, justifying detention to protect public safety.

The core of the legal dispute turns on a little-noticed provision of the 2026 Emergency Powers Regulations (EPR): Paragraph 7(5) of the EPR Schedule explicitly grants the Review Tribunal— the body tasked with reviewing PDO detentions— the authority to assign a legal representative to indigent detainees, when the tribunal determines legal aid is necessary to carry out its justice functions. Regulation 7(6) further specifies that costs for assigned counsel are to be covered by parliamentary appropriations, within existing spending limits.

According to Ramkhalwhan’s letter, Wilson’s mother Abena Wilson formally requested an urgent review of her son’s detention on July 29, explicitly notifying the tribunal that her family could not afford to hire a private attorney. The next day, the tribunal secretary redirected her to the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority (LA AA) to secure representation. Over the following two weeks, Abena Wilson repeatedly contacted and visited the LAAA to request assistance, but the authority uniformly declined support. The LAAA confirmed it does not provide legal representation for preventive detention matters or challenges before the Review Tribunal, leaving Wilson with no access to counsel.

Ramkhalwhan argues the Review Tribunal failed entirely to uphold its statutory obligations. Not only did the body wrongly shift its responsibility for assigning counsel to an agency that lacks authority to act in these cases, but it also never informed Wilson of his right to apply for court-assigned representation under Paragraph 7(5), never considered whether legal aid was required for the fair conduct of his detention review, and never issued any reasoning for declining to appoint counsel. “The power conferred by paragraph 7(5) is simply not mentioned. On the material available to me, the Review Tribunal did not consider it at all,” Ramkhalwhan wrote in the letter.

The attorney emphasizes the problem extends far beyond Wilson’s individual case. He says Wilson has reported that dozens of other PDO detainees at the Eastern Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre are also struggling to access information about securing legal aid to challenge their detentions. To date, no information, application forms, or lists of available attorneys have been provided to indigent detainees, and no tribunal or government officials have visited facilities to explain the process for accessing court-appointed counsel.

Ramkhalwhan called the current setup a system that exclusively penalizes low-income people, noting that detainees with the means to hire private counsel are guaranteed the right to retain an attorney at their own cost under existing regulations. Indigent detainees, by contrast, are directed to a non-functional process with an agency that cannot assist, leaving them completely locked out of the legal system. He added that the vast majority of people held under PDOs come from the country’s most economically marginalized communities — the exact group Paragraph 7(5) was designed to protect.

The Review Tribunal was given until 4 p.m. on an unspecified recent date to appoint counsel for Wilson, and as of the latest reporting, attempts to reach Ramkhalwhan for comment on whether a response had been received were unsuccessful. Ramkhalwhan has warned that if the issue is not resolved immediately, he will move forward with judicial review and constitutional proceedings, arguing the tribunal’s failure to appoint counsel is unlawful and unconstitutional. He contends the tribunal’s decision to redirect Wilson to the LAAA, and its refusal to exercise its own statutory power to assign counsel, is ultra vires (beyond the legal power granted to the tribunal under the EPR) and violates Wilson’s constitutional right to equal protection of the law under Section 4(b) of the national constitution, effectively rendering the only legal protection for indigent detainees completely unenforceable.