标签： Guyana

CASTRIES, St. Lucia – July 7, 2026 – Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders have reached a collective agreement to pursue an official advisory opinion from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to resolve a long-running controversy surrounding the five-year reappointment of current CARICOM Secretary General Dr. Carla Barnett.

The decision comes after the government of Trinidad and Tobago refused to drop its formal objection to the procedural framework used to approve Barnett’s reappointment. CARICOM chair and St. Lucia Prime Minister Phillip J. Pierre outlined the consensus in an official statement shared with reporters on Tuesday.

“CARICOM acknowledged that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago desires to have the issue of the reappointment of the Secretary General referred to the Caribbean Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion thereon,” Pierre said.

To accommodate Trinidad and Tobago’s request, regional heads of government have authorized the launch of formal court proceedings under Article 212 of the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, the foundational legal document governing CARICOM integration. Pierre emphasized that the process aligns perfectly with the core mandate the CCJ was created to fulfill.

“This is the very purpose for which the CCJ was created, to be a treaty interpretation body,” Pierre added.

In a 22-page formal correspondence sent to all CARICOM leaders ahead of the meeting, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar argued that regional integration cannot be built on procedural shortcuts or unregulated practices framed as historical precedent. She stressed that the bloc’s unity must be rooted in consistent adherence to the rules all member states have voluntarily agreed to uphold.

Persad-Bissessar pushed for the CCJ – which serves as the official interpreter of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas for the regional integration movement – to weigh in on the legality of the reappointment process. She also proposed that Barnett remain in office on a month-to-month interim basis only until the CCJ issues its ruling, with the arrangement explicitly stated to not undermine the legal positions of any member state or validate the disputed reappointment process.

Under Persad-Bissessar’s proposal, Barnett would also fully recuse herself from any decisions directly or indirectly related to the advisory proceedings, with all relevant authority transferred to the CARICOM Deputy Secretary General or an independent third party.

However, CARICOM leaders opted to maintain the current status quo surrounding Barnett’s reappointment, and the arrangement will remain in place until the bloc reviews and acts on the CCJ’s upcoming advisory opinion. Pierre noted that this path was chosen to resolve the dispute amicably, while allowing CARICOM to continue carrying out its core business without disruption to any member state’s legal standing.

In tandem with this dispute resolution process, Pierre reaffirmed that CARICOM is moving forward with a long-planned review of its internal governance architecture, a mandate first agreed at the bloc’s previous conference held in St. Kitts and Nevis, aimed at strengthening institutional governance and boosting operational effectiveness across the community.

Leaders also emphasized that the legal review process does not call into question the integrity of any member state, nor that of any individual involved in the controversy. Instead, Pierre said, the process reflects the bloc’s shared commitment to upholding the highest standards of good governance and pursuing continuous institutional improvement.

In closing, Pierre reaffirmed that all heads of government remain committed to CARICOM’s core mission and regional integration objectives. Despite the current internal dispute and the wide range of economic and social challenges facing the bloc, leaders remain dedicated to advancing collective regional interests in unity, he added.

A heated political debate over asset transparency has erupted in Guyana, centered on claims surrounding President Irfaan Ali’s agricultural holdings and the origin of his investment capital. The controversy first took shape Sunday, when opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed of the A Partnership for National Unity/People’s National Congress Reform (APNU/AFC) made explosive allegations: that President Ali misused his executive office to secure a 150-acre plot of land along the popular Linden-Soesdyke Highway, and poured at least 2 billion Guyanese dollars into the development of the farm. Mohamed has since doubled down on these claims, calling for the president to step down immediately over the alleged improprieties.

President Ali has forcefully pushed back against all accusations, pushing back on claims that he has hidden the true origin of his investment. He confirmed that the farm is indeed his property, noting this fact has never been kept secret from the Guyanese public. To counter claims of illicit funding, Ali explained that he has already complied with existing ethics rules by submitting all required financial disclosures to the country’s Integrity Commission annually, and his official banking records confirm he used legitimate borrowed capital to fund the agricultural project.

The clash has drawn comment from the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP), with the party’s Executive Secretary Zulfikar Mustapha weighing in on the growing demand for public disclosure of the president’s full asset records. After initially declining to address the issue with Demerara Waves Online News, Mustapha clarified his stance when pressed on whether Ali should authorize the Integrity Commission to release his full financial documents to the public.

“That is for the President to decide on that,” Mustapha stated, declining to pressure the country’s leader one way or the other on the disclosure question. He did, however, emphasize that the president has already met all legal obligations for financial transparency, noting that annual mandatory disclosures to the Integrity Commission signal the president has no undeclared assets or hidden misconduct to conceal.

Mustapha’s comments came just under an hour after the main opposition bloc publicly reiterated its position that the president has a clear democratic duty to release his full financial records to the public in order to put all lingering concerns about alleged financial misbehavior to rest. As of Tuesday morning, no final decision on public disclosure has been announced from the president’s office, leaving the Guyanese public waiting for clarity amid intensifying political pressure.

GEORGETOWN, Guyana – July 7, 2026 – Guyana’s second-largest parliamentary opposition bloc, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) led by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), has publicly called on President Irfaan Ali to release a complete breakdown of his personal finances to verify that his acquisition of a sprawling 150-acre agricultural property along the Linden-Soesdyke Highway aligns with his reported income and documented borrowing.

In an official statement released Tuesday, the 12-seat opposition coalition emphasized that in a functional democratic system, no public official – regardless of the highest office in the land – is exempt from public oversight. The group argued that Ali is obligated to address growing public questions and deliver the level of accountability that Guyanese citizens are entitled to expect from their head of state.

“PNCR/APNU calls on the President to make full public disclosure of all his income, assets, liabilities, and the specific financial arrangements underpinning the acquisition and development of these lands,” the statement read. “Full transparency would serve to dispel existing doubts, strengthen public trust in government, and demonstrate a clear commitment to the core principles of good governance.”

The demand follows viral public scrutiny sparked earlier this week when Azruddin Mohamed, leader of the 16-seat main opposition party We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), published a video tour of the highly developed, modern agricultural operation on the site. Mohamed labeled the property a private ranch, noting it includes commercial livestock enclosures, fruit orchards, a private on-site electricity transmission network, climate-controlled ventilated poultry tunnel houses, shaded crop growing structures, cattle barns, and multi-level housing for sheep.

Responding to the initial revelations over the weekend, President Ali confirmed he is the legal owner of the farm, but pushed back against allegations of impropriety. He stated that his asset declarations filed with Guyana’s Integrity Commission, paired with official banking records, confirm he funded the property and its development through personal borrowing. A former Minister of Housing and Water, Ali vehemently denied abusing his public office to acquire the land or secure the infrastructure for the project, adding that most long-time political observers and Guyanese citizens were already aware of his ownership of the farm.

“There is absolutely no State involvement or no State financing for any single thing on my farm. It is in existence long before I became President and all of my assets have been declared to the Integrity Commission,” Ali told Demerara Waves Online in an interview Sunday. “Further to my assets being declared to the Integrity Commission, the financial system can verify and support every single investment I have made, and all my assets and liabilities which include my loan. So it is completely false that any part of this was supported by any State investment.”

PNCR/APNU however pointed to a previous unresolved legal matter to back its call for full disclosure: the bloc noted that 19 fraud-related charges against Ali were ultimately dropped after he assumed the presidency, one of which specifically concerned parcels of land along the Linden-Soesdyke Highway. “The recent revelations regarding these lands are therefore not new and raise serious questions that demand clear and transparent answers,” the coalition said.

The opposition is demanding Ali explicitly confirm whether he is the full beneficial owner of the farm land, and address questions over the property’s financing. Local reports put the annual lease payment for the land at approximately 25 million Guyanese dollars, a sum that PNCR/APNU argues demands public explanation. “The Guyanese people deserve to know how such payments are being financed and whether they are consistent with his declared sources of income,” the statement added.

Ali’s monthly salary as President currently sits just under 4 million Guyanese dollars.

The coalition stressed that as head of state, Ali holds a legal fiduciary responsibility to the people of Guyana and is required to uphold the highest standards of transparency and accountability. “The public is entitled to know how this wealth was acquired and whether all relevant declarations have been made in accordance with the law,” the statement concluded.

After nearly three decades without permanently filling Guyana’s two top judicial posts, a leading University of the West Indies constitutional law expert is calling on President Irfaan Ali and new Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed to launch fresh, constitutionally mandated consultations to finalize substantive appointments for Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice.

In an interview with Demerara Waves Online News, Professor Tracy Robinson — who teaches law at UWI’s Mona campus in Jamaica — argued that prior consultation efforts have lapsed, so the process must start over with the current officeholders, not the outgoing opposition leadership that was originally approached in 2024. Last October, roughly one month after the September 2024 general and regional elections, President Ali sent a formal proposal to then-outgoing Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton to confirm the already-serving interim leaders: Acting Chancellor Roxane George-Wiltshire and Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh. That proposal never moved forward, making new talks with Mohamed a constitutional necessity, Robinson said.

Robinson emphasized that the permanent appointment of Guyana’s top judicial leaders, mandated under Article 127(1) of the nation’s constitution, is foundational to protecting judicial independence and upholding the rule of law. That constitutional requirement imposes a binding obligation on the sitting president and current opposition leader to reach a shared agreement through good-faith negotiation, she explained. “Given that earlier efforts have fallen into desuetude or become defunct, it is crucial that both political leaders restart consultations afresh, or begin anew, and in good faith,” she said.

She noted that negotiations can sometimes stretch over long periods, fail to produce consensus, or become obsolete when the officials originally involved leave office — a reality that reinforces the need for the current leaders to take up the process now. To support her argument, Robinson referenced a 1999 Belizean judicial ruling from Justice George Meerabux, which addressed a problematic chief justice appointment made the day before an election, before opposition leaders were consulted. In that case, Meerabux stressed that good faith and appropriate timing are non-negotiable, and that caretaker governments should avoid making major, long-impact decisions that undermine parliamentary democracy.

Robinson went on to draw on rulings from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to lay out the legal framework for the required consultations. She cited CCJ Justice Peter Jamadar’s 2021 judgment in *Air Services v Attorney General*, which defined the core principles of what Jamadar termed “Guyanese consultation.” Per that ruling, any legitimate negotiation process must be rooted in transparency, openness, clarity, inclusivity, accountability and timeliness for all stakeholders involved.

While Article 127(2) does allow the president to appoint interim officeholders when positions are vacant or other exceptional circumstances arise, following meaningful consultation with the opposition leader, Robinson stressed that the constitutional mandate for a permanent, substantive appointment remains binding. She argued that the shift from unilateral presidential appointment to shared, consensual decision-making outlined in the constitution means both leaders have a mutual duty to engage in good faith when the roles are held on an acting basis.

Robinson also referenced the 2019 CCJ ruling in *Zulfikar Mustapha v The Attorney General and The Chairman of The Guyana Elections Commission*, in which the court invalidated the appointment of a Guyana Elections Commission chair made by former president David Granger. In that case, CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders wrote that the Guyanese Constitution expects both the president and opposition leader to act reasonably and responsibly, set partisan interests aside, and prioritize the welfare of the Guyanese public.

The current interim appointments were made in August 2025, when George-Wiltshire — previously serving as acting chief justice — was elevated to acting chancellor, and Singh was named acting chief justice. The last substantive appointments to these roles came decades ago: Desiree Bernard was confirmed as substantive chief justice in 1996, and later as substantive chancellor in 2001. Ever since, repeated failures by successive presidents and opposition leaders to reach consensus have left the top two judicial posts permanently filled by interim officials, creating an unprecedented gap in Guyana’s judicial governance.

“In consultative and consensual decision-making processes involving the President and the Leader of the Opposition, good faith, fair and enabling processes, appropriate timing and timeliness, and political maturity matter enormously,” Robinson said. The leading constitutional scholar summed up the urgency of restarting talks with a memorable analogy: “Consultation is one dish that cannot be served cold.”

A months-long constitutional standoff over appointments to Guyana’s key elections oversight body has intensified after a senior ruling-party affiliated legal expert has confirmed that President Irfaan Ali lacks the authority to install three new opposition-nominated election commissioners, citing a critical lack of existing vacancies on the commission.

Speaking to Demerara Waves Online News on condition of anonymity, the legal expert, who has publicly aligned with the governing People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC), framed the restriction as a clear requirement of Guyana’s governing law. “Once there is no vacancy, how can the President appoint? The President cannot unless somebody is removed – in other words, a vacancy must exist first. Even if the President wanted to move forward with the appointments, the Constitution does not allow it,” the expert explained.

The dispute traces back to June 30, when current Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed submitted his three nominees – attorneys Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva – to President Ali for appointment. Citing Article 161(3)(b) of Guyana’s Constitution, Mohamed claimed he had completed required consultations with all opposition parties represented in the 65-seat National Assembly to finalize the selections.

But the landscape of Guyana’s parliament shifted dramatically following the September 1, 2025 general and regional elections, which upended decades of political convention for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). Since the return of democratic elections in 1992, the two largest political blocs – the PPPC and the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and its coalition APNU – held a shared grip on National Assembly representation, a balance that was reflected in GECOM’s structure, with each side holding three commissioner seats.

Last year’s election result broke this long-standing arrangement. The PNCR-led APNU, which previously held the position of main opposition, lost its status after securing only 12 seats. It was replaced by the We Invest in Nationhood party, which won 16 seats to become the new main opposition, with the Forward Guyana Movement claiming an additional single seat. Despite this seismic shift in parliamentary representation, the three incumbent PNCR/APNU-appointed GECOM commissioners have refused to step down, arguing that they can only be removed through resignation, a formal court order, or an amendment to Guyana’s constitution and electoral law.

Strikingly, the ruling PPPC-affiliated legal expert’s interpretation of the constitution aligns fully with the position of the incumbent PNCR commissioners: Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin and Desmond Trotman. “They are lawfully appointed commissioners who have not tendered their resignation,” the source confirmed. The legal expert added that the only viable path to resolving the deadlock is through judicial intervention, noting that the existing constitutional framework does not provide an alternative mechanism to adjust GECOM’s composition following the change in parliamentary opposition leadership.

On a sunny Sunday along Guyana’s Buxton Public Road, a small but vocal group of demonstrators gathered to push back against a highly controversial proposed bill that would grant former heads of state uncapped lifetime benefits and full tax exemptions. The demonstration has brought long-simmering public frustration over unequal public resource allocation to the forefront of national political debate.

Walston Martins, Chairman of the Buxton-Foulis Neighbourhood Council and one of the protest leaders, laid out a conditional compromise for the government: he will not oppose the bill only if lawmakers first approve sweeping, substantial increases to public benefits for ordinary Guyanese. Martins’ demands include a $400,000 Guyanese dollar (GYD) after-tax minimum salary for public servants, a GYD$120,000 cash grant for school-aged children, a GYD$100,000 monthly old-age pension, free land plots for all adult citizens, and high-quality upgrades to the nation’s deteriorating road and bridge infrastructure.

“If you want this legislation to pass, I have no personal objection – but you must deliver every benefit I have outlined to the Guyanese people before you move forward with the bill,” Martins told reporters from Demerara Waves Online News. “Outside of that, we will never back this bill, because it is entirely unreasonable and unfair to everyday citizens.” Despite pushback from economic observers who warn such large increases could stoke inflation and exacerbate the country’s already high cost of living, Martins – who stressed he is not a professional economist – said he does not share those concerns.

The 2026 Former Presidents Benefits Bill, if approved, will replace the 2015 legislation enacted by the previous APNU+AFC coalition government. The current 2015 law places strict caps on benefits for former presidents: it limits combined monthly utility allowances for water, electricity and telephone services to GYD$25,000 per service, restricts the number of assigned vehicles, security personnel and support staff, caps annual medical expense coverage, and bars former presidents from receiving these benefits if they engage in profitable private business or trade.

The new proposal effectively reinstates the 2009 law passed during former President Bharrat Jagdeo’s administration, which was repealed when the 2015 legislation went into effect. Unlike the current law, the 2026 bill sets no upper limits on any benefits for former presidents, and removes the ban on benefits for former leaders engaged in gainful private employment. These uncapped benefits come on top of the already generous monthly pension of more than GYD$2 million that all former presidents currently receive. Four living former presidents – Jagdeo, Samuel Hinds, Donald Ramotar and David Granger – would immediately qualify for these expanded benefits if the bill passes.

While Martins offered a conditional compromise, other opposition figures are calling for the bill to be scrapped entirely. Kidackie Amsterdam, an executive member of the Working People’s Alliance, estimates the uncapped benefits could drain between GYD$100 million and GYD$200 million from the national treasury every year – money he says would be far better directed to easing the cost-of-living crisis for current low-income pensioners, who receive just GYD$46,000 per month in old-age benefits.

Amsterdam announced that Sunday’s protest is just the first step in a broader public mobilization campaign. He is set to organize a public panel discussion in the coming weeks to build widespread public opposition, with the goal of staging large-scale national protests to force the government to abandon the legislation. “Today’s small turnout doesn’t reflect the level of public anger – we’re just starting the conversation to raise awareness,” Amsterdam explained. “Someone has to get this movement off the ground, and that’s exactly what we’ve done today.”

Amsterdam also raised alarms over potential personal benefits for incumbent President Irfaan Ali, arguing Ali could exploit the bill’s tax exemption provisions to avoid paying taxes on his private 150-acre farm located off the Linden-Soesdyke Highway. “This farm is projected to generate multi-million-dollar profits, but not a single cent in taxes would go to the Guyanese people, while billions in public funds are drained from our treasury to pay for former and sitting presidents’ benefits,” he said.

Annette Ferguson, a senior member of the People’s National Congress Reform, echoed Amsterdam’s opposition, saying the government’s ability to pass the bill with its simple parliamentary majority ultimately depends on how aware ordinary Guyanese are of the legislation’s fiscal impact. “Once more Guyanese understand how much this will cost our country at the expense of working people and retirees, they will push back,” Ferguson said. “When that public pressure builds, I don’t see the government being able to move forward with this unfair proposal.” She added that revelations about the incumbent president’s private tax-exempt farm have already galvanized additional public anger against the legislation.

CASTRIES, St. Lucia – July 6, 2026 – A major constitutional dispute has emerged at the 51st Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Heads of Government Summit, after Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar formally challenged the legality of incumbent Secretary-General Carla Barnett’s reappointment, framing the objection as a defense of institutional integrity rather than a personal or political attack.

In a 22-page confidential letter shared with regional leaders and obtained by the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC), Persad-Bissessar laid out detailed legal objections to Barnett’s February 2026 reappointment, which was approved during a heads of government retreat in St. Kitts and Nevis. Barnett, the first woman to hold the CARICOM Secretary-General post, began her first term in August 2021.

The Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister emphasized that her administration’s position is not intended to sow division within the regional bloc, but to protect the constitutional order that underpins CARICOM’s legitimacy. “Regional unity cannot rest upon expediency and irregular practices masquerading as precedent. It must rest upon adherence to the rules which every Member State has freely accepted and undertaken to uphold,” Persad-Bissessar wrote.

Persad-Bissessar outlined four core violations of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, CARICOM’s founding legal framework. First, she noted that Article 24 of the treaty explicitly grants the power to appoint and reappoint the Secretary-General to the full Conference of Heads of Government, not a closed, informal heads-only retreat. While retreats may facilitate confidential discussion, she argued, they cannot replace the formal constitutional body designated to exercise appointment authority. Even though attendees of the retreat overlap with full Conference membership, she wrote, “Substance prevails over nomenclature. A body cannot acquire treaty powers merely because participants overlap with those who ordinarily constitute the treaty organ.”

Second, Persad-Bissessar pointed out that the official communique issued after the February retreat made no mention of the reappointment decision, depriving member states of advance notice and the opportunity to prepare for deliberation on one of CARICOM’s most senior constitutional posts. She rejected arguments that past unrecorded practices justify the current process, noting “two wrongs do not make a right,” and that the principles of openness and informed participation enshrined in the treaty require explicit agenda notice for such critical decisions.

Third, the Prime Minister highlighted that the mandatory constitutional process requiring a recommendation from the CARICOM Community Council prior to any appointment or reappointment was completely bypassed. Persad-Bissessar stressed that this requirement is not an optional procedural formality, but a core constitutional safeguard, and that reappointment falls under the same rules as a first appointment. “By bypassing the Community Council, the constitutional balance established by the Revised Treaty was displaced, and the Conference purported to exercise a power that had not yet been lawfully engaged,” she wrote.

Fourth, Persad-Bissessar noted that the Office of the CARICOM General Counsel failed to provide adequate legal guidance to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements for representation, agenda setting, and decision-making. She argued that this omission directly contributed to the current controversy over the reappointment’s validity.

To resolve the dispute, Persad-Bissessar has proposed two key interim and long-term measures. First, she called for an immediate expedited advisory opinion from the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) – CARICOM’s highest judicial body – under Article 212 of the Revised Treaty, to clarify the treaty’s requirements for Secretary-General reappointment. She emphasized that turning to the CCJ is not an act of confrontation, but a commitment to the rule of law that all member states agreed to uphold: “Resorting to the CCJ is not an act of confrontation. It is an affirmation of the very constitutional architecture that Member States created to safeguard the integrity of the Community.”

Second, Persad-Bissessar proposed that Barnett remain in office on a month-to-month basis only until the CCJ issues its ruling, with the extension explicitly stated to not prejudice the legal positions of any member state. She also mandated full recusal for both Barnett and the CARICOM General Counsel from all proceedings related to the CCJ referral: Barnett because she has a direct personal and legal interest in the outcome of the case that creates a conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias, and the General Counsel due to her role as a primary advisor to Barnett. All responsibilities related to the advisory proceedings would be transferred to the CARICOM Deputy Secretary-General or another independent party.

The dispute has become a central agenda item for regional leaders, who began a closed-door retreat on the first working day of their four-day summit, chaired by St. Lucia Prime Minister Phillip J. Pierre. Persad-Bissessar arrived at the summit’s opening ceremony Sunday night after Barnett delivered her opening remarks, and St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Dr. Terrance Drew, who spoke after Barnett’s reappointment in February, publicly praised her stewardship of the Guyana-based CARICOM Secretariat and the regional integration movement. Drew noted that Barnett “have understood the importance of preserving the impartiality of the Secretariat while faithfully implementing the decisions of heads of government,” adding that “that balance has strengthened this community, and for this, I offer, on behalf of all of us, our sincerest gratitude.”

In closing her letter, Persad-Bissessar reaffirmed Trinidad and Tobago’s commitment to strengthening CARICOM institutions, noting that decades of regional cooperation and collective global influence depend on transparent, treaty-compliant governance. “Those achievements can only endure where the institutions of CARICOM are administered transparently and consistently with the Revised Treaty, and with the legal framework to which every Member State has committed itself,” she wrote, adding that an authoritative CCJ ruling would provide the clarity and legitimacy needed for the bloc to move forward together.

The 51st regular summit of the 15-nation Caribbean Community (CARICOM) kicked off in St. Lucia Sunday, opening with a stark rebuke from outgoing Chairman Dr. Terrance Drew, who also serves as Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis, targeted at regional leaders who skip critical decision-making gatherings.

Drew’s opening address came amid a growing regional controversy tied to his role in announcing a second five-year term for incumbent CARICOM Secretary-General Dr. Carla Barnett, set to begin in August. The announcement has drawn fierce pushback from the government of Trinidad and Tobago, whose Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has publicly pledged not to recognize Barnett’s tenure after her current term expires on July 31, 2026.

The dispute over the appointment process stretches back months: Persad-Bissessar walked out of a February CARICOM summit hosted in St. Kitts and Nevis before the vote on Barnett’s re-appointment, delegating her attendance to Foreign Minister Sean Sobers. Reports later confirmed Sobers ultimately did not travel to the summit venue on Nevis, citing safety concerns related to the required ferry crossing. More recently, Persad-Bissessar also missed a virtual CARICOM summit called to address her formal objections to the appointment process, a absence that drew quiet scrutiny ahead of the St. Lucia summit.

At Sunday’s opening ceremony, Persad-Bissessar arrived at the venue only minutes after CARICOM’s Secretary-General delivered her opening address, aligning with the pattern of partial participation that Drew called out in his speech.

“Whenever this community faces matters of great significance, let us ensure that every head of government makes every effort to be present,” Drew told assembled delegates. He went on to emphasize that CARICOM’s internal disputes should be resolved through closed, candid dialogue between member leaders, rather than through public posturing that plays out in media headlines.

“No newspaper headline has solved a disagreement among Caribbean leaders. No public commentary has ever replaced honest dialogue,” Drew said. “But respectful conversation among colleagues committed to a common purpose has repeatedly strengthened this community. Trust is strengthened, misunderstandings are resolved, consensus is built [when we meet in person].”

Despite the public rift over Barnett’s appointment, Drew struck a conciliatory note in key portions of his address. He publicly praised Barnett for her tenure, highlighting her consistent professionalism, unwavering integrity, and careful commitment to upholding the impartiality of the CARICOM Secretariat while faithfully executing leaders’ policy decisions.

“Madam Secretary General, thank you for your professionalism, your integrity, and your steadfast commitment to this community throughout my tenure,” Drew said. “Whenever I called, you answered. Whenever support was required, you and your team responded with diligence, competence, and excellence. You have served with distinction, you have understood the importance of preserving the impartiality of the Secretariat while faithfully implementing the decisions of heads of government — that balance has strengthened this community.”

Drew also reaffirmed CARICOM’s collective commitment to Trinidad and Tobago’s upcoming candidacy for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, noting that the region’s unified backing has been critical to the small island nation’s campaign. He stressed that CARICOM’s collective influence on the global stage is only possible when all member states stand together, even amid internal disagreements.

“Although Trinidad and Tobago was the candidate, it entered that election carrying the united and public support of the Caribbean community,” Drew said. “That support demonstrated that when CARICOM stands behind one of its own, our collective voice commands respect on the world stage. One could not imagine that Trinidad, a very small country when considered against the rest of the world, would be in a position to compete for a Security Council seat on its own.”

On the eve of CARICOM Day, Guyana’s main opposition-aligned Working People’s Alliance (WPA) has issued a nationwide call for peaceful public demonstrations to push back against the Irfaan Ali administration’s proposed legislation that would restore uncapped financial and service benefits to all former Guyanese presidents. The protest, scheduled to kick off at 10 a.m. local time on July 6, will center on a main gathering at Church of God Road in Buxton, with organizers urging civic and community groups across all regions of the country to host parallel peaceful demonstrations in their own localities.

WPA executive member Kidackie Amsterdam made the announcement during an appearance on the *Politics 101* program hosted by Dr. David Hinds, appealing for cross-sector participation from trade unions, religious institutions, youth organizations, private sector leaders, and other civil society groups to join the demonstration. The core target of the protest is the *Former Presidents’ Facilities and Benefits Bill 2026*, which the current administration has introduced to repeal the 2015 benefits act implemented by the former APNU+AFC government that placed strict caps on all post-presidency benefits.

Amsterdam laid out the high projected cost of the proposed legislation, estimating that the three living former presidents – Samuel Hinds, Bharrat Jagdeo, and Donald Ramotar – would drain an additional 100 million to 200 million Guyanese dollars annually from public coffers, on top of the existing arrangement that grants former presidents seven-eighths of the sitting president’s 3 million-plus GY$ annual salary. He drew a sharp contrast between this proposed generous spending and the struggles of ordinary Guyanese, noting that the country’s more than 76,000 senior citizens receive just 46,000 GY$ per month in old age pension. Former President David Granger, the fourth living former head of state, currently travels to Cuba for ongoing specialized medical care under existing benefits provisions.

Joining Amsterdam on the program, former PNCR executive member Annette Ferguson threw her full support behind the protest, rejecting the proposal that the bill be sent to a bipartisan parliamentary select committee for review – a position put forward by PNCR executive and APNU parliamentarian Ganesh Mahipaul. Ferguson argued that the bill is unconscionable and imposes an unfair extra financial burden on Guyanese citizens already grappling with soaring cost of living, underfunded public healthcare, and underresourced education systems. She also recalled that a nearly identical uncapped benefits bill was pushed through by the Jagdeo administration in 2009, despite widespread public outcry from civil society and the then-opposition.

Notably, the broader A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) coalition, which counts the WPA as a member, has not formally backed public protests against the bill. But the WPA has framed the demonstration as a non-partisan push to scrap legislation it argues would place an unnecessary drain on public finances at a time when most Guyanese are struggling to cover basic living costs.

Key provisions of the 2026 bill that have sparked outrage would eliminate nearly all restrictions on former presidents’ benefits. Under the proposed law, former presidents would be exempt from all income taxes, just like the sitting head of state. Critically, the legislation would grant unlimited benefits regardless of whether a former president engages in private business, paid employment, or even if they are convicted of a criminal offense that results in a prison sentence.

The 2015 law currently in effect – which the Ali administration is moving to repeal – puts clear limits on all public spending for former presidents. It caps combined monthly utility costs (water, electricity, telephone) at 25,000 GY$ per former president, limits medical expense reimbursement to 200,000 GY$ annually for the former president, their spouse, and minor children, and restricts reimbursement to care received at domestic public health facilities unless the required treatment is not available locally. The 2015 framework also limits personal security to no more than two full-time personnel, caps state-provided motor vehicles at two, and provides an annual vacation allowance equal to two first-class return airfares, aligned with the terms offered to Supreme Court judges.

Amsterdam emphasized that the WPA does not oppose treating former presidents with dignity and reasonable respect, but argues any benefits must be balanced against the country’s pressing economic needs and the constraints facing ordinary taxpayers. He warned that the cumulative long-term cost to the national treasury of the uncapped benefits could run into hundreds of millions of Guyanese dollars, diverting critical funds from far more urgent national priorities. Those priorities, he said, should include higher wages and benefits for teachers, nurses, police officers and other public servants, expanded public healthcare access, increased support for pensioners and people living with disabilities, expanded school feeding programs, critical infrastructure upgrades, youth employment programs, and financial support for the agriculture sector and small businesses.

“This is a question of national priorities,” Amsterdam said. “Public office is a privilege of service, not a pathway to unlimited taxpayer-funded privileges after leaving office. This demonstration is not about personalities or partisan politics – it is about protecting the public purse and demanding responsible governance.”

He criticized the government for using its parliamentary majority to advance a policy that ordinary Guyanese never asked for and cannot afford, arguing that the proposed legislation is completely out of touch with the daily economic realities facing most citizens. “Every additional dollar committed to generous post-office benefits is a dollar unavailable for urgent national priorities,” he noted.

Amsterdam closed with an appeal to all Guyanese, regardless of political affiliation, ethnicity, or religious background, to join the peaceful, lawful demonstrations across the country. “Let us demonstrate peacefully, lawfully and respectfully. Let us send a clear message that Guyana’s wealth belongs to all Guyanese and should first be used to improve the quality of life of the people,” he said.