分类： politics

A brewing standoff between Trinidad and Tobago’s Communication Workers Union (CWU) and national police authorities has emerged after a planned protest march outside the Port of Spain headquarters of telecom provider TSTT was abruptly canceled at the eleventh hour. CWU President Joanne Ogeer is now publicly challenging the sudden reversal of previously granted protest permissions, raising pointed questions about outside influence on the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) decision.

Ogeer confirmed in a voice note interview with local broadcaster TV6 that all required administrative steps to secure approval for the demonstration had been completed well in advance of the planned event. She personally coordinated with leadership at Port of Spain’s Central Police Station and the area’s commanding superintendent to finalize logistics for the march, which was intended to pressure TSTT to agree to a 10% wage increase for CWU members covering two bargaining periods: 2020–2022 and 2023–2025.

Despite weeks of coordinated preparation and formal sign-off from police officials, Ogeer said she received formal notification early yesterday morning that the previously approved permit had been retracted. With no time to adjust logistics, the union was forced to scrap the planned demonstration entirely.

The sudden reversal has left Ogeer questioning both the underlying motive for the decision and whether any external parties exerted improper influence on TTPS to block the workers’ action. She pushed back against the restriction, emphasizing that the CWU is a law-abiding organization that only seeks to exercise its fundamental right to collective action amid stalled wage negotiations.

“Why is it so important to restrict workers from expressing their right as it pertains to broken-down wage negotiations with TSTT and the Communication Workers Union?” Ogeer asked in the interview.

She clarified that while the union remains committed to operating strictly within the bounds of national law, the cancellation of the march will not end its push for a fair wage deal. The union has already activated a contingency “Plan B” for continued industrial action, though Ogeer declined to share details of the alternative strategy during yesterday’s interview.

Ogeer also noted that CWU is not affiliated with the local Coalition of Interest, a fact she says means the union’s path to resolving the wage dispute will likely be longer and more challenging than for other organized labor groups. She warned CWU members to prepare for an extended period of industrial action, telling reporters that advocating for worker rights “is not a job for the faint-hearted.”

A $191 million state-led housing development earmarked for one of Trinidad and Tobago’s most violent gang-controlled areas has been thrown into chaos and scrutiny, after a sitting cabinet minister publicly questioned the integrity of its procurement process and the fundamental wisdom of building residential units in the high-risk zone. Phillip Edward Alexander, Minister in the Ministry of Housing, laid out a series of damning questions during a press briefing held on the paused construction site at Citrus Close, Laventille, a piece of territory long contested by rival gangs from Beetham and Laventille. This plot, previously owned by the Citrus Growers Association, is classified by local law enforcement as a “hot zone” for ongoing violent gang conflict, a context Alexander says makes the former People’s National Movement (PNM) administration’s decision to proceed with housing development deeply irresponsible. Under the previous PNM government, the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) advanced plans to build 10 multi-unit structures holding a total of 191 apartments at the site, awarding the main construction contract to Wood Green Construction Services for $191.275 million. The bidding process, however, raises immediate red flags: Alexander confirmed that two firms, Wood Green and Rainbow Construction, made it to the final tender round, with Rainbow submitting a bid of just $137.244 million – a full $54 million lower than the winning offer from Wood Green. Initially, the contract was awarded to the lower-bidding Rainbow, but the HDC’s own Procurement and Disposal Advisory Committee reversed that decision and handed the work to the more expensive Wood Green. In a May 2024 letter obtained by Alexander and addressed to the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR), Rainbow formally challenged the revised award, arguing that awarding the contract to a bidder $54 million more expensive constituted blatant public fund waste and unauthorized overspending. The letter was submitted during the mandatory standstill period after the contract award, and the OPR promised to launch a formal investigation within a year of receiving the complaint. Now, two years after that pledge of inquiry, Alexander says no findings or conclusions have been released, pointing to what he calls a suspicious double standard from the regulator that is currently far more active in scrutinizing HDC operations today than it was when this alleged irregularity was reported. Compounding the procurement concerns are questions about the project’s broader viability and safety. Alexander argues that building residential units in an active gang conflict hot zone puts future residents at unnecessary, severe risk of violence. He also questioned the project’s economic logic, noting that development costs are drastically out of line with local land values in the area. Per Alexander’s calculations, the per-unit cost is so high that the units cannot be sold at a price that recoups public investment; if rented instead, it would take taxpayers more than two centuries to recover the full $191 million outlay. As of the press conference, all construction work at the site has been halted, and Alexander confirmed that the current government has no clear path forward for the stalled development, leaving the project’s future entirely up in the air. Local media outlet the Express attempted to reach Wood Green Construction Services for comment via contact information listed on the firm’s official Facebook page, but has not received any response to requests for statement as of publication.

Long-simmering internal tensions within the People’s National Movement (PNM) San Fernando East constituency boiled over into public view this week, after the local executive directly rejected a directive from top party leadership and launched a pointed public counterattack against sitting Member of Parliament Brian Manning. The conflict was ignited when Manning took to his personal Facebook page Wednesday to air a series of sharp grievances against the constituency executive and its chair, Patricia Alexis.

Within 24 hours of Manning’s public post, national PNM chairman Marvin Gonzales stepped in to de-escalate the dispute, releasing an official statement on the party’s public Facebook page that warned all party members against airing internal disagreements in the public sphere. Gonzales clarified that the leadership had already taken steps to address the specific claims Manning raised against Alexis, and was guiding the matter through the party’s established internal processes.

Gonzales’ attempt to contain the conflict behind closed doors failed, however. By Thursday evening, the San Fernando East constituency executive released its own public statement via Facebook, pushing back aggressively against Manning’s allegations. The executive noted that it normally adheres to longstanding party norms that keep internal disagreements within party structures, but argued that Manning’s actions had left it no choice but to respond publicly. It pointed specifically to Manning’s choice to name Alexis directly, repeat what it called unproven damaging claims, and push for a public judgment on a matter that was already under active review by the national party leadership, which it said demanded a forceful response.

The executive pushed back against any implication that it avoids transparency or accountability, countering that Alexis has already fully cooperated with the ongoing internal investigation, voluntarily submitted to the party’s processes, and declined to use media influence to sway the inquiry’s outcome. The executive confirmed that the national party had already assembled a formal investigative team with clear, approved terms of reference. That team has already held interviews with Manning, Alexis, and witnesses from both sides of the dispute, and has submitted a full report of its findings and policy recommendations to the PNM leadership and General Council. The executive confirmed that party leadership is currently moving forward with implementing the report’s recommendations.

In a sharp rebuke of Manning, the executive claimed the MP has only been willing to accept an internal investigation that operates on his own personal terms. “Personal preference is not proof of unfairness,” the statement read, adding that “He cannot demand due process while publicly undermining that process because it is not proceeding exclusively on his terms.”

The executive also accused Manning of reviving old, unproven allegations first circulated by the opposition United National Congress — claims that have never been validated by any public factual finding — to question Alexis’ and the executive’s collective integrity. The statement called this tactic “dangerous and profoundly irresponsible,” noting that “A disclaimer cannot erase the reputational damage caused by calculated innuendo.”

The executive reminded the public that back in November 2024, the large majority of its local party groups and the full executive endorsed Manning as the PNM candidate for the 2025 general election. “The same executive whose support was welcomed when it secured his nomination cannot suddenly become untrustworthy because it refuses to surrender its independence,” the statement said.

Turning to electoral performance, the executive noted that the PNM won the San Fernando East seat by a comfortable 5,173-vote margin in the 2020 general election. After a full recount in the 2025 contest, that majority collapsed to just 673 votes. While the executive acknowledged that broader national political shifts contributed to this decline, it urged Manning to examine his own performance as a representative and local party leader, rather than shifting blame to local party members who helped him hold the seat. “A leader confronted by that level of electoral decline should begin with introspection and not scapegoating the volunteers and officers who helped him retain his seat,” it said.

The executive pushed back on Manning’s calls for open democratic process, questioning why he refuses to allow the PNM’s own internal democratic structures and membership judgment to run their course. “Is the real concern that, without the support of the current executive he now attacks, his own political standing may be considerably less secure than he wishes to admit?” the statement asked. It emphasized that democracy does not require members to only accept a process when they control its terms or are guaranteed a favorable outcome.

In one of the most pointed segments of the statement, the executive referenced the legacy of Patrick Manning, the late iconic PNM leader and former MP for San Fernando East, who is Brian Manning’s father. “The late honourable Patrick Manning’s legacy was earned through discipline, service, accessibility and performance. That legacy cannot be reduced to a surname, nor can it be used as a shield against accountability. Heritage is not a substitute for leadership,” it read.

The executive closed by reiterating its commitment to the PNM’s internal processes: it does not claim to be perfect, nor does it seek to shield any member from legitimate scrutiny, and it has fully cooperated with the national leadership’s investigation, a commitment it says will continue. “What we will not accept, is the use of mischievous political allegations to discredit our members or divert attention from failures of representation and leadership,” the statement concluded. “San Fernando East is greater than any one officeholder, personality or surname. Our responsibility remains service to the people, loyalty to the Party and respect for the democratic institutions upon which the People’s National Movement was built.”