Carib Scope

分类： politics

  • OP-ED: Guyana’s candidate for top UN post receives backing of Caribbean leaders

    OP-ED: Guyana’s candidate for top UN post receives backing of Caribbean leaders

    Leaders of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have closed ranks behind Guyana’s nominee Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett for the 10th United Nations Secretary-General position, but internal divisions within the regional bloc have cast uncertainty over a unified regional front for the high-profile global role, as small Caribbean nations brace for outsized geopolitical impacts from the race’s outcome.

    The endorsement came at CARICOM’s 51st regular heads of government summit, where regional leaders formally backed Rodrigues-Birkett’s candidacy in an official communiqué. Nominated by Guyana on June 15, 2026, her selection as the bloc’s consensus candidate marks a major diplomatic win for the South American Caribbean nation.

    Rodrigues-Birkett’s three-part policy vision, which she laid out to attending leaders at the summit, won widespread support across the bloc. Her agenda is anchored in upholding the core principles laid out in the UN Charter, reforming the body’s institutional structures to boost agility, accountability and effectiveness amid a rapidly shifting global order, and uniting member states around renewed multilateral collaboration to deliver more consistent progress across the UN’s three core pillars: peace and security, human rights, and sustainable development.

    Despite the formal bloc-wide endorsement, the path to a unified CARICOM position is not fully resolved. Another CARICOM member state, Antigua and Barbuda, has already nominated its own candidate for the role: H.E. María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, an Ecuadorian former diplomat who entered the race on May 11, 2026.

    Shortly after the summit concluded, Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne reaffirmed his government’s continued support for Espinosa Garcés, noting that CARICOM now has two highly qualified candidates in the running for the top UN job. This stance directly contradicts the formal summit communiqué’s call for unified regional backing, exposing lingering splits within the 14-member bloc over the selection process. The divide comes even though CARICOM’s founding Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas requires member states to coordinate their foreign policy positions on global issues.

    As the race for the UN’s top role enters its final phase with multiple candidates competing, the stakes could not be higher for CARICOM’s small island and coastal states. The current Secretary-General António Guterres’ second and final five-year term will expire in December 2026, with his successor set to take office in January 2027. The incoming leader will inherit a UN mid-way through comprehensive reform, operating amid unprecedented geopolitical tension that has strained the post-WWII international order.

    Guterres has recently warned that the existing 80-year-old rules-based global system is being displaced by a ‘law of the jungle’, a shift that small states like CARICOM’s members are uniquely vulnerable to. Caribbean nations are disproportionately exposed to risks stemming from the erosion of multilateralism and international law, leaving their sovereign influence and future stability uncertain in the current geopolitical climate.

    Against this backdrop, CARICOM member states universally recognize that the outcome of the Secretary-General race will shape nearly every core priority of their foreign policy, as the next UN chief will play a defining role in efforts to reset and strengthen the global body. This analysis, written by Nand C. Bardouille, Ph.D., manager of The Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean at The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus in Trinidad and Tobago, reflects solely the author’s own views.

  • WATCH: PM Browne Presents Resolution In Parliament to Govern Any Third-Country National Transfer Agreement

    WATCH: PM Browne Presents Resolution In Parliament to Govern Any Third-Country National Transfer Agreement

    In a significant parliamentary development focused on strengthening national immigration and international cooperation frameworks, Prime Minister Gaston Browne has presented a key resolution to the Antigua and Barbuda Parliament that will establish formal regulatory guidelines for any future agreements involving the transfer of third-country nationals.

    The proposal, which has been long-awaited by legislative stakeholders and policy analysts, comes amid growing regional and global discussions about managing irregular migration, strengthening border security, and clarifying the legal terms of cross-border transfer arrangements between countries. In his address to lawmakers ahead of the vote on the resolution, PM Browne emphasized that the framework is designed to ensure that all such agreements align fully with the nation’s constitutional standards, international human rights obligations, and domestic policy priorities.

    Unlike ad-hoc arrangements that have been considered in some previous discussions, this resolution creates a clear, transparent legislative pathway that requires parliamentary oversight for any final agreement moving forward. It sets out specific requirements for documentation, screening, and welfare standards for any third-country nationals that would be subject to a transfer agreement, addressing concerns raised by opposition lawmakers and human rights advocacy groups over the past several months.

    Lawmakers are currently debating the provisions of the resolution, with a formal vote expected to be held in the coming days. Government officials have noted that the regulatory framework does not commit the country to any specific transfer agreement at this stage; instead, it creates the legal foundation that would allow the government to negotiate and implement such arrangements in compliance with domestic law. Prime Minister Browne reaffirmed that any agreement reached under this framework would prioritize national security while upholding the dignity and rights of all individuals involved, in line with the country’s longstanding commitment to international cooperation and humanitarian principles.

  • Is there an economic war of the United States against Cuba?

    Is there an economic war of the United States against Cuba?

    When analyzing modern geopolitical confrontation, few tactics are as pervasive yet underdiscussed as economic warfare — a non-military strategy where one power leverages trade, finance, and regulatory pressure to force policy concessions from a targeted nation. As French scholar Christian Harbulot famously framed it, economic warfare stands as the most powerful expression of non-military power dynamics, designed to cripple an adversary by cutting it off from global commercial, financial, and technological exchange. For Cuba, this is not an abstract concept: it has been the daily reality of its relationship with the United States for more than six decades, in the form of the sweeping economic, commercial, and financial blockade that has shaped every layer of Cuban life.

    The origins of this prolonged economic campaign stretch back to the immediate aftermath of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, which ousted the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. In response to the new revolutionary government’s nationalist policy reforms, then-U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower moved quickly to cut off most bilateral trade, only exempting medicines and a small set of food products. Just three years later, in February 1962, President John F. Kennedy formalized the full blockade using powers granted by the newly enacted Foreign Assistance Act, a framework that remains the legal foundation of the embargo to this day.

    Under the still-valid legislation, the U.S. executive branch is authorized to maintain a complete trade embargo with Cuba, ban all direct U.S. aid to the Cuban government, bar the use of American international aid funds allocated to global organizations for any Cuba-focused programs, and withhold all U.S. government benefits from Cuba until the island compensates U.S. citizens and companies for properties nationalized after the revolution. Critically, the law also grants the U.S. president broad discretionary power to adjust the scope and intensity of sanctions, a authority that successive U.S. administrations have repeatedly used to ratchet up political and economic pressure on Havana. For decades, proponents of the blockade justified the measures by claiming Cuba posed a critical threat to U.S. national security, a narrative that grew increasingly threadbare after the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, which plunged Cuba into a deep economic crisis.

    With the Cold War pretext no longer credible, the U.S. shifted its justifications to claims of human rights abuses, codifying this new framing in the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act — more commonly known as the Torricelli Law. This legislation marked a key turning point, expanding the economic war beyond U.S. borders to internationalize pressure on Cuba. It prohibited Cuba from accessing financing from major international financial institutions, imposed sanctions on foreign governments that forgive Cuban debt, banned U.S. subsidiaries operating in third countries from trading with the island, and imposes an 180-day ban on any ship carrying goods or passengers to or from Cuba docking at U.S. ports. A core outcome of this provision has been to push global financial institutions to avoid any engagement with Cuba, severely constraining the island’s access to foreign currency and complicating its commercial transactions with global partners.

    Four years later, the 1996 Helms-Burton Act deepened the extraterritorial reach of the blockade even further. Most notably, its Title III provision allows U.S. courts to hear lawsuits against foreign companies that operate in properties confiscated from U.S. owners after the revolution. This provision turned the economic war into a globally reaching measure, designed to deter third countries and foreign firms from doing business with Cuba through the threat of costly litigation. In recent decades, this provision has significantly shrunk the pool of foreign investment opportunities available to the island.

    Successive updates and expansions of the blockade over 60-plus years have turned it into a permanent, structural pillar of U.S.-Cuba confrontation, outlasting shifts in domestic political leadership in the United States and maintaining consistent pressure regardless of broader geopolitical changes. Even as some administrations have taken small steps to ease certain restrictions, former President Donald Trump intensified the campaign again with new executive orders, including a targeted energy siege that worsened the impact on Cuban communities. For Cuba, the cumulative impact of this decades-long economic warfare has been deep and multifaceted, touching every aspect of daily life, slowing long-term economic development, and reshaping the country’s engagement with the global economy.

    This op-ed is contributed by Ariel Pazos Ortiz, Consul of the Embassy of Cuba in Grenada. NOW Grenada does not take responsibility for the opinions and statements shared by contributors. Readers may report content that violates platform policies through official reporting channels.

  • Court overturns appointment of lead judge in vaccine mandate case

    Court overturns appointment of lead judge in vaccine mandate case

    A landmark legal ruling from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) has upended the appointment of a senior appellate judge, while leaving his controversial prior decision on a high-stakes COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place, sending ripples through legal and political circles in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG).

    In a written judgment delivered July 7, High Court Justice Raulston L. A. Glasgow annulled the January 8, 2024 appointment of St. Lucian jurist and academic Eddy Ventose to the ECSC’s Court of Appeal. The ruling confirmed that at the time Ventose wrote a key 2025 majority verdict overturning a lower court’s nullification of SVG’s national COVID-19 vaccine mandate, he did not legally hold the position of Justice of Appeal.

    The vaccine mandate case at the center of broader public and legal debate traces back to March 2023, when then-High Court Justice Esco Henry — now elevated to the appellate bench — ruled the mandate implemented by SVG’s ruling Unity Labour Party (ULP) was unconstitutional and void. The government appealed the decision, and in February 2025, a 2-1 majority of the ECSC appellate panel led by Ventose overturned Henry’s ruling. Appellate Justice Paul Webster joined Ventose’s majority opinion, while Justice Gerhard Wallbank issued a dissent saying he would have upheld the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the government’s appeal.

    The validity of Ventose’s appointment was first challenged in December 2025, when former Grenada Attorney General and King’s Counsel James A.L. Bristol filed an application for judicial review with the ECSC, targeting the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC)’s approval of Ventose’s appointment. Bristol argued Ventose failed to meet two core statutory qualifications for appellate court office laid out in Section 5(2) of the ECSC Courts Order: first, he had not served a cumulative total of at least five years as a judge of an unlimited jurisdiction court in the Commonwealth, and second, he had not accumulated the required 15 years of experience practicing as an advocate before a qualifying court.

    Ventose had sought to dismiss Bristol’s challenge outright, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and labeling the application an abuse of process. The court rejected this preliminary motion in December 2025, clearing the way for a full merits trial of the challenge.

    In his final judgment, Justice Glasgow confirmed that Ventose’s appointment fails to meet the statutory qualifications mandated by law. Citing Section 101 of the Grenada Constitution Order 1973, Glasgow ruled Ventose’s appointment is “unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect” due to his failure to satisfy the eligibility criteria in Section 5(2) of the Courts Order. Critically, however, the judgment explicitly clarifies that the ruling casts no shadow over Ventose’s professional legal standing: the court confirmed no questions have been raised regarding Ventose’s competence, extensive legal expertise, or widely acknowledged professional accomplishments, a position Bristol himself reaffirmed during oral arguments.

    Glasgow noted that all relevant stakeholders — including the JLSC, Ventose, the ECSC, the appointment search committee, and the public Ventose served — operated under the shared assumption that Ventose’s appointment was valid until the search committee raised formal concerns. There is no evidence to conclude Ventose knew or reasonably should have known he occupied the office unlawfully, the judge added.

    This finding cleared the way for Glasgow to apply the de facto officer doctrine to all proceedings Ventose participated in and all rulings he issued during his tenure. “Those proceedings and judgments are therefore not rendered invalid by reason only of the defect in his appointment,” the judgment reads. This means Ventose’s February 2025 ruling overturning the lower court’s voiding of the vaccine mandate, along with all other rulings he issued during his time on the bench, remain in effect unless overturned by a higher court.

    The core legal dispute centered on interpretation of the statutory language governing appellate qualifications. All parties to the challenge agreed Ventose did not meet the first eligibility requirement of five years of prior judicial service in a Commonwealth unlimited jurisdiction court. The disagreement turned on whether he met the second requirement: 15 cumulative years of practice as a qualified advocate before such a court. The JLSC defended its appointment, asserting it had properly verified that Ventose met the 15-year requirement and had complied fully with all statutory rules. Ventose echoed the JLSC’s position, affirming he meets the constitutional eligibility criteria and that his appointment was lawful.

    The vaccine mandate case is now pending final review by the London-based Privy Council, SVG’s highest appellate court. Legal analysts note the recent ruling on Ventose’s appointment is expected to reignite fierce public debate in SVG over the controversial mandate, which political observers say played a decisive role in the ULP’s landslide 14-1 defeat to the New Democratic Party (NDP) in the November 2025 general election. The mandate led to the termination of hundreds of public sector workers who refused vaccination, though most have since returned to their positions under transition arrangements negotiated between the outgoing ULP administration and the incoming NDP government.

  • Ministry’s state land review raises bigger questions about housing

    Ministry’s state land review raises bigger questions about housing

    A government-led audit of recent state land allocations in St. Vincent and the Grenadines has ignited widespread public debate, pushing discussions of housing policy and land governance to the top of the national agenda. The review, which focuses specifically on parcels distributed in the lead-up to the 2025 November general election, was launched to assess whether these allocations aligned with existing regulatory frameworks and core principles of fair distribution.

    According to the nation’s Minister of Housing and Land Management, the ongoing audit has already uncovered several irregularities across the allocation process. These include multiple parcels granted to a single individual, repeat recipients who still have unfulfilled financial or legal obligations tied to earlier land grants, and allocations that failed to prioritize low-income and vulnerable households identified as the most in need of state support. The minister has emphasized that the review is not designed to seize land from rightful, eligible beneficiaries, but rather to formalize and regularize existing arrangements, urging qualifying recipients to complete their documentation through the official Housing and Land Development Corporation.

    Beyond the individual cases under review, the audit has opened up broader, far-reaching questions about how small island developing states like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, which face extreme constraints on land and public finances, can build a housing system that is equitable, transparent, and responsive to both current and long-term population needs. The core takeaway from this ongoing discussion is that meaningful housing reform must start with robust, accountable land governance.

    For any nation, and particularly small island states with limited territorial space, land is one of the most precious and finite public resources. Decisions around how state land is distributed do not only impact individual recipients — they shape national development trajectories, social equity outcomes, and public trust in government institutions. Because of this, transparent allocation protocols, accurate and up-to-date beneficiary records, clearly defined eligibility criteria, and consistent enforcement of land agreements are non-negotiable components of an effective national housing strategy. When these systems are weak, limited public resources fail to deliver on their intended goals, leaving the most vulnerable groups excluded from access to affordable land and housing.

    This analysis frames strengthened land governance not as a separate policy priority, but as the foundational bedrock of meaningful housing reform. The current public debate also highlights a longstanding gap in how global housing policy outcomes are measured: for decades, success has been primarily judged by the number of homes built or parcels allocated. While these metrics are not irrelevant, they only paint a partial picture of a housing policy’s impact.

    Housing is far more than the physical structure of a building. A property becomes a stable home only when it is paired with secure land rights, access to critical infrastructure, proximity to employment opportunities, connected to quality education, healthcare, and public transport, and embedded in functional, connected communities. The true value of housing lies not in the structure itself, but in the security, opportunity, and improved quality of life that it enables for households and communities. This perspective has increasingly become the consensus in international housing policy discourse.

    Global organizations including UN-Habitat have long argued that governments cannot solve national housing crises through large-scale construction alone. Instead, sustainable housing solutions require governments to build enabling regulatory and institutional environments that empower households, community groups, financial institutions, private sector developers, and international development partners to collaborate on inclusive, long-term solutions. This approach is especially relevant to the unique context of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

    The nation is still progressing through recovery and reconstruction efforts in the wake of Hurricane Beryl, while navigating structural challenges shared by many small island developing states: limited fiscal capacity, exorbitantly high construction costs, scarce availability of suitable developable land, and growing exposure to climate-related natural hazards. Under these conditions, large-scale, publicly funded housing programs alone will never be able to meet growing national demand for affordable housing. A more sustainable, resilient model requires integrating effective land administration with climate-resilient construction practices, innovative housing financing mechanisms, incremental incremental incremental incremental incremental housing solutions, and strategic cross-sector partnerships.

    As such, national housing policy must be understood as a core component of a broader, interconnected national development strategy. It is inextricably linked to land management, disaster risk reduction, urban planning, economic opportunity, and social inclusion. The role of strong governance in this process cannot be overstated. International development partners increasingly prioritize not just a country’s documented housing needs, but also the strength of its domestic institutions, the transparency of its administrative processes, and its capacity to manage public resources effectively. Robust governance builds public and donor confidence, and increases the likelihood that limited public investments will deliver lasting, equitable benefits for communities.

    Viewed through this broader lens, the current state land review presents far more than an opportunity to resolve individual allocation irregularities. While individual cases will require appropriate administrative action in due course, the larger, more transformative opportunity is to strengthen the institutional systems that govern access to land and housing for future generations of Vincentians.

    Ultimately, the success of a national housing policy should not be measured only by the number of parcels allocated or homes constructed. The more meaningful, far-reaching measure is whether public policy creates inclusive communities where all residents hold secure land rights, have access to essential public services, can access stable livelihood opportunities, and possess the resilience to withstand future climate and economic shocks. If the current review sparks a sustained national conversation about how to integrate land policy, housing development, and broad-based national development, it will have achieved a purpose far beyond resolving individual allocation disputes.

    For St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the core challenge is not simply building more housing units. It is building a lasting housing system that is fair, transparent, climate-resilient, and capable of supporting the long-term well-being and property ownership aspirations of all Vincentians.

    *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this analysis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of iWitness News.*

  • Prisons boss sent on leave over Hadeed ‘special treatment’

    Prisons boss sent on leave over Hadeed ‘special treatment’

    A high-stakes scandal has rocked the Trinidad and Tobago prison system, resulting in the immediate suspension of the nation’s top prisons commissioner and a second senior official over explosive allegations that a wealthy businessman held on charges of plotting to assassinate top government leaders was granted special, rule-breaking privileges not available to other detainees.

    Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander has publicly confirmed the disciplinary action, confirming that Commissioner of Prisons Carlos Corraspe and the unnamed senior official were placed on paid administrative leave after a formal complaint was filed by the country’s Prison Officers Association (POA). The allegations, laid out in a detailed letter dated to last Friday from POA General Secretary Lester Logie, center on Dominic Hadeed, a 52-year-old businessman currently detained under a Preventive Detention Order (PDO) at the Golden Grove Prison over accusations he conspired to kill Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and other senior government officials to destabilize the nation.

    Logie’s letter, which was copied directly to both the prime minister and Alexander, outlines a litany of unauthorized privileges that multiple uniformed prison officers witnessed Hadeed receiving, in direct violation of longstanding security protocols for detainees held under preventive detention. Among the most notable of the unapproved benefits was access to watch 2026 FIFA World Cup football matches on television, a perk not extended to any other detainee held under the same type of detention order. Other privileges included private table visits that are not permitted for this category of detainee, unsupervised movement inside the Golden Grove Prison Administration Building, access to the facility’s outdoor airing yard after the mandatory 8:30 p.m. curfew, and the assignment of a full-time dedicated Prison Officer II solely to Hadeed.

    The complaint also notes that Hadeed’s wife Genevieve, 42, who is also detained at the Golden Grove Women’s Prison on the same conspiracy charges, was spotted meeting with Hadeed inside the restricted administration building, a further breach of facility rules. Compounding the inequity, Logie pointed out that the reassignment of a Prison Officer II to Hadeed has left the death row unit at the Port of Spain Prison severely understaffed, despite the division’s critical operational needs. The letter also highlights a separate, contradictory case where another maximum security detainee was denied medically approved care by the commissioner’s office, reinforcing what Logie called a clear pattern of unequal treatment.

    Beyond the fairness of the system, Logie emphasized that the preferential treatment has already created significant safety risks for frontline prison officers. Resentment over Hadeed’s special status has spiked tension among the general detainee population at the Golden Grove Remand Prison, where detainees have openly complained of discriminatory treatment. Logie revealed that this agitation has already escalated to direct threats against officer lives: one detainee told a senior superintendent he was arranging to have officers killed after observing the favorable treatment Hadeed received. Logie recalled past fatal attacks on officers that stemmed from perceptions of unfair treatment inside the facility, including the murder of a superintendent who refused to smuggle contraband into the prison for an inmate.

    These unauthorized arrangements, Logie argued, undermine fundamental security protocols, erode public and detainee confidence in the fairness of the prison system, and expose all uniformed staff to unnecessary, avoidable risk. In his letter, Logie called for urgent corrective action: a formal commitment to equal treatment for all preventive detention detainees, strict re-enforcement of existing security rules around detainee movement, access and visits, and immediate action to correct the dangerous staffing imbalance at Port of Spain Prison’s death row division. The POA, he added, expects swift intervention to stop further erosion of institutional discipline and protect officers working under increasingly dangerous conditions.

    Local news outlet the Express, which first broke the story, confirmed that within days of the letter being submitted, Corraspe and the second senior official were placed on immediate leave. When contacted by reporters for comment, Alexander confirmed he had reviewed the official complaint, adding that family members of other detainees had also submitted separate complaints about the unequal treatment. When reached by phone for comment, Corraspe declined to address the allegations or the disciplinary action, telling reporters only, “I have no comment to make concerning these matters, please.”

    To contextualize the case, Dominic Hadeed, his wife Genevieve, and Genevieve’s 69-year-old maternal aunt Star Sabga were taken into custody in late June under emergency powers granted to the government. The PDOs authorizing their detainment, signed by Alexander, cite intelligence confirming the trio is part of an active conspiracy to murder senior government leaders and incite violent instability across the country. Genevieve Hadeed’s detention order specifically references public calls for the assassination of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar. The couple was arrested at their private residence in Westmoorings on June 24, while Sabga was taken into custody the following day and is currently being held alongside Genevieve at the Golden Grove Women’s Prison.

  • Threats for Guevarro’s daughters

    Threats for Guevarro’s daughters

    Law enforcement agencies in Trinidad and Tobago have launched an urgent investigation after explicit threats were made against the family of the country’s top police official, in a separate incident, a sitting cabinet minister is also facing a documented assassination plot that authorities are already probing. The disturbing sequence of events began last Saturday, when police received an emergency call through the E999 emergency response line. According to internal police sources, the caller was unable to contact Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro directly, and issued a chilling warning that they would instead target Guevarro’s two adult daughters if their demand to speak to the commissioner was not met. Immediately after the threat was received, the call was marked as high-priority, and specialist investigators from the Cyber Crime Unit were brought in to trace the origin of the call and identify the perpetrator behind the threats. On Monday, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration) Junior Benjamin publicly addressed the situation during an interview with the Express, emphasizing that the entire Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) stands unwaveringly behind its leader and will not be cowed by attempts at intimidation. “We certainly do not take kindly to threats, especially threats made to our Commissioner of Police, his family, any officer or any citizen, and we will do what is absolutely necessary to deal with the situation decisively, and we will deal with it in accordance with the law… the full brunt of the law,” Benjamin stated. “The TTPS stands firmly behind its Commissioner, and officers would not be intimidated, by such actions, from performing their duties.” Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander also spoke to reporters yesterday from his constituency office in Tunapuna, confirming that he was aware of the threats against Guevarro’s family, and expressed full confidence in the TTPS’s ability to bring the investigation to a successful conclusion. While he declined to disclose sensitive operational details of the ongoing probe, Alexander framed the threats as an indicator that the national police force is making meaningful progress in cracking down on criminal activity, that is pushing desperate criminal elements to lash out. “It is clear that something positive is happening in this country, and criminal elements are doing what they can to disrupt it,” Alexander added. Beyond the threats targeting Guevarro’s family, Alexander also confirmed that investigators are already probing separate alleged threats against Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath. Earlier reporting from the Sunday Experience has detailed claims that a former government minister offered a $250,000 payout to a hired individual to assassinate Padarath. Padarath first went public with the threat in December 2025, saying he was contacted by the head of Special Branch, who arranged a formal meeting to inform him of the planned plot against him. Following that briefing, police advised Padarath that his personal security detail would be strengthened, and Special Branch would carry out a full security evaluation to address any vulnerabilities. The minister told reporters at the time that he was shocked by the revelation of the assassination plot, but made clear that the threat would not stop him from carrying out his official duties to the public. Alexander confirmed yesterday that law enforcement moved quickly to address the threat against Padarath as soon as it was brought to his attention, stressing that the incident is treated with the highest level of urgency. “The ministers and I speak every day, and if something comes to my attention that needs urgent attention, it will be dealt with. It happens to the minister, it can happen to the public. So, yes, a lot of communication took place. And it is necessary that it should be done now because of what we have unearthed. It is very serious,” Alexander said.

  • Probe after ‘$250,000 disappears’ during police search

    Probe after ‘$250,000 disappears’ during police search

    A formal misconduct investigation is underway targeting three members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), following allegations that $250,000 in cash went missing during a search of a scrap iron dealer’s Claxton Bay property in late June. The case has sparked accusations of police abuse of power amid the country’s current state of emergency, with the dealer’s attorney arguing the allegations expose serious misconduct by law enforcement.

    Akini Joseph, a scrap metal dealer widely known by the alias “Mundo,” was not at his residence when officers from the Marabella Police Station arrived on the evening of June 27. The officers stated their mission was to locate stolen brass on the property, and when Joseph was contacted mid-search by a concerned relative, he instructed his family to grant the search team full access to the compound, attorney Subhas Panday, who represents Joseph, confirmed to local outlet Express in a recent interview.

    According to Panday’s account of the search, the operation took an unexpected turn when officers probing a bedroom ceiling dislodged a five-dollar banknote. The lead corporal on the scene then ordered a constable to retrieve a ladder to access the attic space, where the team discovered a hidden box containing stacks of cash totaling $250,000. From that point, the cash was never recorded as evidence or returned to Joseph: the search team told Joseph’s family they had found no illegal materials on the property before concluding the operation.

    Independent police sources have confirmed that closed-circuit security footage from the property, a portion of which has been viewed by Express, captures one of the responding officers exiting the home and concealing an amount of cash in his uniform pockets. Investigators have also obtained additional corroborating details about the officers’ activities on the compound during the search.

    When Joseph returned home from the cricket match he was attending, a relative immediately alerted him that the search team had seized his hidden cash. When Joseph confronted the officers and demanded the money’s return, while stating his intention to contact legal representation, he was taken into police custody on allegations of making threats against officers, Panday explained. Joseph remained detained at the local police station for four days before he was formally questioned about the alleged stolen brass on July 1 — it was during this interrogation that Joseph first formally brought up the missing $250,000 to the lead corporal, according to his attorney.

    On July 6, Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander signed a Preventive Detention Order (PDO) against Joseph, citing intelligence reports that place the dealer as a member of an informal organized crime group. The order links Joseph’s scrap business to the illegal disposal of stolen property, claims he threatened responding officers during the June 27 search, and alleges he is in illegal possession of firearms. Authorities further assert that intelligence indicates Joseph’s criminal network was planning to expand its illegal operations, including carrying out more frequent attacks on commercial properties across the region.

    Panday has since filed a formal application to challenge the PDO before the independent Review Tribunal, and as of the latest update, is still waiting for a hearing date to be scheduled. The attorney has issued a sharp rebuke of law enforcement actions in the case, arguing that officers are exploiting the existing state of emergency to enter the homes of private citizens without required search warrants and target innocent people.

    “They are abusing the state of emergency and going into innocent people’s homes without search warrants. Authorities must take steps to prevent this kind of behaviour, they are taking advantage of innocent people,” Panday told Express.

    The Professional Standards Bureau (PSB), the TTPS internal body mandated to investigate officer misconduct, corruption, and abuse of authority, is leading the probe into the three officers — one corporal and two constables. The official complaint against the officers was filed by Joseph’s relatives just hours after the search concluded, a timeline confirmed by Panday.

  • Penny: PNM has nothing to hide

    Penny: PNM has nothing to hide

    Trinidad and Tobago’s Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles has issued a firm public declaration that the People’s National Movement (PNM) has no wrongdoing to conceal, and pledged to resist every effort by the ruling United National Congress (UNC) government to smear the main opposition party. Her remarks came in direct response to recent comments from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who on Sunday called on the PNM to submit evidence proving the legal construction of its Port of Spain headquarters, Balisier House, to two independent state bodies — the national police service and the judiciary.

    The latest development in this unfolding political clash began last Friday, when High Court Justice Margaret Mohammed granted a court order to the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) forcing the PNM to explain the source of funding for the multi-million-dollar construction project. The TTPS has been carrying out an official inquiry into the building’s origins for some time. On the same day the order was granted, Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro — who had appointed acting Assistant Commissioner Ramdath Phillip to lead the investigation — authorized Phillip to file an application for a Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order with the High Court, a step permitted under Section 58(1) of the 2019 Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act.

    In her official statement released this week, Beckles referenced a separate detailed comment issued the same day by PNM Chairman Marvin Gonzales, noting that after a meeting with the party’s top leadership, Gonzales was directed to release a clear response to a story published the previous Saturday in the *Express* newspaper.

    “The legacy of our longstanding political institution will not be tarnished by a government that would rather launch desperate political attacks than tackle the actual problems our country faces,” Beckles said. She described the PNM as a historic movement that has served Trinidad and Tobago with distinction for seven decades.

    Beckles argued that the UNC government, which is already facing growing public pressure over its failure to address spiraling crime, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, rising living costs and plummeting public trust in national leadership, has deliberately shifted focus to attacking the PNM’s headquarters to distract voters. She emphasized that the public’s top priority should be the UNC’s clear failure to deliver improved living standards for ordinary citizens.

    Going further, Beckles launched a scathing counter-attack on the ruling party, labeling the UNC as politically adrift, corrupt and fraudulent, claiming it has ties to alleged human traffickers, includes members currently free on bail, and is facing multiple active police investigations into the conduct of its own members of parliament.

    She stressed that the governing party will not be permitted to rewrite Trinidad and Tobago’s national political history, framing Balisier House as far more than just a physical office building. “Balisier House is the soul of the PNM. It embodies the blood, sweat and tears of generations of citizens who have dedicated themselves to this movement,” Beckles, who serves as the Member of Parliament for Arima, explained. She added that the building stands as a monument to the thousands of volunteers, supporters, party workers and patriotic citizens who have given their time and personal resources to the PNM out of a commitment to public service.

    “Under my leadership, the PNM will never stand by and allow anyone to erase these contributions from our nation’s political and physical landscape,” Beckles vowed. She repeated her call for the public to question why the government is prioritizing an attack on the main opposition when communities across the country are crying out for urgent action to curb violent crime, working families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing living costs, and local businesses are grappling with widespread economic uncertainty.

    Closing her statement, Beckles reaffirmed her commitment to continuing her defense of the PNM, the country’s democratic system, and the fundamental right of citizens to have a robust opposition that holds the sitting government accountable for its actions and policies.

  • Column: Tijdelijke maatregelen vragen blijvende openheid

    Column: Tijdelijke maatregelen vragen blijvende openheid

    There is an old adage that holds true across many policy contexts: no measure is more permanent than a temporary policy that never gets scheduled for review. This principle is now playing out in Suriname, where a temporary fuel price cap implemented amid the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East continues to operate without the public transparency and scheduled evaluation that good governance demands.

    When regional hostilities sent international oil prices skyrocketing in early 2025, threatening to accelerate already strained inflation levels, the Surinamese government faced a critical policy choice. To protect household purchasing power and avoid adding additional pressure to already strained manufacturing and transportation sectors, authorities introduced a fuel price cap on March 18. The policy set maximum retail prices of 53.27 Surinamese dollars (SRD) per liter for diesel and 48.32 SRD per liter for unleaded gasoline. At the time of its introduction, the emergency measure was widely viewed as a justifiable decision to counter volatile market conditions.

    But every temporary intervention raises an unavoidable question over time: when and how will policymakers assess whether the policy is still needed? Since March, the global oil market has been anything but stable, with prices swinging sharply between steep increases and sudden drops before climbing again amid continued Middle Eastern geopolitical tensions. This volatility underscores just how challenging it is to implement and sustain fuel price policy in an unpredictable global economy – and that reality makes transparency all the more critical for public accountability.

    During recent parliamentary budget deliberations, Minister of Finance and Planning Adelien Wijnerman confirmed that the government would review the future of the fuel subsidy program in the near term. She also noted that a gradual phase-out of the cap would likely be more prudent than an abrupt end to the policy. Wijnerman added that without the current price cap, retail prices would rise to roughly 64 SRD per liter for diesel and 62 SRD per liter for unleaded gasoline.

    President Jennifer Simons has also shed light on the significant fiscal cost of the policy, revealing that the government foregoes approximately 300 million SRD in monthly revenue to keep fuel prices artificially low, through a reduction in state levies on fuel. This represents a major fiscal commitment: public funds can only be spent once, and every month that the state treasury forgoes hundreds of millions of Surinamese dollars means less budget available for critical investments in healthcare, education, public safety, infrastructure, and other core public services.

    This fiscal trade-off does not automatically mean the fuel subsidy must be eliminated entirely. But it does mean that Surinamese society has a right to know how policymakers are weighing these competing priorities. The core debate around this policy is not ultimately whether fuel prices should rise or fall – it is a question of responsible governance and an open, accountable government.

    Multiple critical questions remain unanswered for the public: How is the current price cap calculated on a monthly basis? Exactly how much revenue is the state actually foregoing? What is the current size of the effective subsidy, given that global oil prices have shifted dramatically multiple times since the cap was introduced? When will policymakers assess whether market conditions have changed enough to require policy adjustments? And when will these trade-off decisions be shared openly with the public?

    Beyond fiscal impacts, the price cap also reshapes competitive dynamics among private oil companies. Before the policy was introduced, companies competed on retail pump prices to attract customers; today, motorists pay nearly identical prices at every filling station across the country. This market intervention has spawned new questions: How does healthy competition still function in this regulated market? Is the subsidy calculated uniformly for every operating oil company? How will policymakers prevent unequal outcomes that stem from differing cost structures and price-building processes among companies? Precisely because the government has chosen to intervene directly in the fuel market, the full workings of this system deserve complete public transparency.

    Price stability for consumers is a legitimate policy goal, and no government is required to adjust retail fuel prices on a weekly basis to match shifts in global commodity markets. But stability does not justify silence on policy trade-offs. Precisely because the government made the deliberate choice in March to implement a sweeping market intervention, the public has a reasonable expectation that authorities will periodically explain how the system works, what trade-offs guide decision-making, and when the policy will next be evaluated. This approach also aligns with the original process the president used to develop the policy, which included open consultations with business groups, trade unions, independent economists, political parties, and other civil society organizations.

    Remarkably, almost no public information is currently available about how fuel prices under the cap are calculated. This information vacuum pushes public debate toward speculation rather than fact-based discussion – an outcome that serves no one, neither the government, operating oil companies, nor the Surinamese public.

    At its core, the debate over the temporary fuel price cap is not about the cost of a liter of gasoline. It is about how much transparency and open accountability good governance is worth. Temporary emergency measures can remain in place for extended periods when conditions justify it. But secrecy around those measures never can.