标签： Jamaica

In the wake of Hurricane Melissa’s catastrophic October 2023 landfall, which caused $12.2 billion in damage and erased 56% of Jamaica’s gross domestic product, the Jamaican government established the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority (NaRRA) to lead the country’s recovery and rebuilding effort. But a leading transparency and accountability advocate is sounding the alarm over gaps in the NaRRA legislation, warning that the same government overreach that was recently struck down by the country’s Constitutional Court could become legally enshrined if reforms are not made.

Jeanette Calder, executive director of the Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP), laid out these concerns during a virtual address to the Kiwanis Club of Kingston on Tuesday, in a presentation titled *Trust, Power & Public Funds: Understanding the NaRRA Bill*. Calder anchored her warning in a landmark Constitutional Court ruling handed down in late April, which invalidated a 2020 environmental permit granted to Bengal Development Limited for a large-scale mining project in the ecologically fragile Dry Harbour Mountains of St Ann. The court found the permit unconstitutional after the Jamaican government overrode formal objections from the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and local communities, both of which warned the project would cause irreversible harm to the sensitive ecosystem.

Calder pushed back against common claims that the NaRRA Bill is crafted to let the government outright bypass independent regulatory agencies entirely. Instead, she clarified, the legislation lets NaRRA control those bodies through a controversial “stepping order” mechanism. Under the bill’s terms, when a regulatory body like NEPA is asked to approve a reconstruction or infrastructure project, NaRRA’s appointed chief executive officer can set a mandatory deadline for the agency to issue a decision. If the agency fails to meet that deadline, or if the CEO simply disagrees with the agency’s technical or planning assessment, the stepping order allows NaRRA to override the regulator’s ruling entirely and issue the approval itself. Critically, the legislation includes no requirement to publicly disclose when NaRRA has chosen to disregard independent technical advice from regulators.

Beyond the lack of transparency around overridden regulatory decisions, Calder identified two additional major accountability gaps in the bill: there is no explicit legal right for affected local communities to weigh in on projects that impact them, and the legislation does not codify a clear right to judicial review for contested NaRRA decisions. For Calder, this framework directly echoes the overreach the Constitutional Court condemned in the Dry Harbour Mountain case, risking embedding that same undemocratic practice into national law.

Calder also drew attention to Section 26 of the NaRRA Bill, which exempts the new authority from the 2019 Public Investment Management System (PIMS) — a regulatory framework designed to guarantee value for public money on large-scale infrastructure projects by requiring a full pre-funding appraisal before any public funds are committed. This exemption is particularly concerning, she argued, because NaRRA’s mandate extends beyond hurricane recovery projects to include a portfolio of broad “national strategic projects” unrelated to post-storm rebuilding. While Calder acknowledged that proponents argue PIMS can slow project delivery, she stressed that the exemption creates a critical accountability risk that could open the door to wasteful spending of public resources.

Perhaps the most pressing concern raised by Calder centers on governance oversight for NaRRA, which will manage a public budget totaling $6.7 billion USD, equal to roughly 1 trillion Jamaican dollars, at a time when public trust in government institutions is already low. Jamaica’s own 2012 Corporate Governance Framework requires independent governing boards for public entities to strengthen transparency, probity and decision-making effectiveness. Yet the NaRRA Bill does not include a formal governing board. Instead, the authority will be led by a single CEO appointed directly by the prime minister, supported by an advisory committee appointed by the relevant government minister.

Calder emphasized that the advisory committee holds no actual legal authority: it cannot block or reverse any decision made by the CEO, the legislation does not require the committee to hold formal meetings, and ignoring the committee’s advice carries no legal consequences. Calder acknowledged that rapid reconstruction is a critical national priority after Hurricane Melissa’s devastation, but she argued that speed should never come at the cost of accountability for public funds and democratic decision-making. She called on the government to integrate robust transparency and accountability mechanisms into the final NaRRA legislation to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to the Dry Harbour Mountain constitutional conflict.

A high-stakes criminal trial involving 25 alleged members of the Tesha Miller-affiliated Klansman Gang saw intensifying legal battles on Wednesday, as defense teams doubled down on efforts to block prosecutors from entering a key witness statement from a deceased woman into official court evidence. The core of the defense’s challenge centers on serious unresolved questions surrounding the woman’s formal identity.

Prosecutors (referred to as the Crown in this jurisdiction) have been calling a sequence of witnesses to meet the legal criteria laid out in Section 31(D) of the country’s Evidence Act. This provision allows out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence when a witness is unable to testify in person, a rule that applies in cases of death, severe illness, the witness being outside the court’s jurisdiction, or failure to locate the witness after exhaustive reasonable searches. The statement in question relates specifically to the 15th and 16th charges laid out in the grand indictment.

The would-be witness, identified as Shanice Roberts, passed away in February 2021. Before her death, she provided a formal statement to law enforcement investigators about the February 7, 2020 murder of Noah Smith, which occurred at Yarico Place in St. Andrew. Four of the accused — Michael Wildman, Jerome Spike, Nashuan Guest, and Geovaughni McDonald — are standing trial on charges that they knowingly facilitated the robbery and killing that resulted in Smith’s death.

Wednesday’s proceedings focused heavily on cross-examination of the detective constable who recorded Roberts’ statement on the night of the 2020 murder. Denise Hinson, the defense attorney representing Nashuan Guest, subjected the officer’s testimony to searching scrutiny. Hinson argued that the photographic exhibit entered into the record, which the detective identified on Monday as depicting the woman he interviewed the night of the killing, is actually not a photo of Roberts. The detective had previously told the Crown during his direct examination that he could recognize Roberts from her distinctive facial features, specifically noting she had a very small nose. The defense has pushed back hard, contending that the submitted photograph is too blurry for the officer to even make out the shape of her nose, undermining his identification.

Hinson’s attempt to prove that the spelling of the woman’s name recorded by the detective did not match the spelling on official court records was unsuccessful. In response, prosecutors argued that variations in spelling were ultimately irrelevant to the case, emphasizing that the Crown only needs to prove the deceased witness and the person in the photograph are the same individual, regardless of minor name spelling discrepancies.

Presiding Justice Dale Palmer ruled on the dispute, noting that recalling the witness solely to address a minor spelling discrepancy does nothing to resolve the core question of whether the person in the photo is actually Shanice Roberts. “It might not take us anywhere,” Palmer observed, later adding: “How does the spelling assist us in one way or the other even if it was a clear image?”

With the judge indicating he would not allow a witness to be recalled to address Hinson’s spelling challenge, prosecutors announced they will outline next steps for their Section 31(D) application when the court reconvenes next Monday. Hinson and fellow defense attorney Sasha-Kay Shaw, who have both formally objected to admitting the statement, are scheduled to submit written legal arguments on the matter in the coming days.

In a separate procedural ruling on Wednesday, the Crown secured judicial approval to amend the third and fourth counts of the indictment, despite fierce pushback from the defense team. The amendment corrects an incorrect date listed for the offense in question. Defense attorneys argued that the amendment would prejudice their clients — Tesha Miller, Rolando Jermaine Hall and Michael Wildman — who are named in these counts.

Justice Palmer, however, rejected the defense’s objections. He noted that there had been no disagreement over the actual date of the offense during cross-examination of the only witness called so far for these counts. Furthermore, Palmer ruled that the amendment request was filed sufficiently early in the trial proceedings, and that defense teams already have more than enough time to adjust their strategies in response. The judge concluded there was no material prejudice to the accused as a result of the change.

Following the ruling, all defendants formally entered a plea of “not guilty” when asked to respond to the amended counts. The trial is scheduled to resume later on Thursday, with additional procedural and substantive arguments expected to move the high-profile case forward.

In a new step to escalate pressure on the Cuban government, the second Donald Trump administration has announced sweeping sanctions targeting three major Cuban entities and a senior executive, framing the move as decisive action to safeguard United States national security. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is the child of Cuban immigrants, outlined the penalties during a formal announcement Thursday, saying the measures are designed to cut off access to what Washington calls illicit assets held by Cuba’s ruling government and military establishment.

The sanctions are issued under the authority of Executive Order 14404, signed by President Trump on May 1, 2026, which grants the administration power to penalize actors deemed responsible for political repression in Cuba and threats to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Under the order, Rubio formally designated three entities for sanctions: Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), a sprawling military-controlled holding conglomerate; Moa Nickel SA (MNSA), a major nickel mining joint venture; and Ania Guillermina Lastres Morera, GAESA’s top executive.

GAESA was targeted for its operations within Cuba’s financial services sector, while MNSA was sanctioned for its activities in the country’s metals and mining industry. Lastres, who serves as executive president of GAESA, was designated for her role as a senior leader of the conglomerate. Rubio described the sanctions as a core component of the administration’s broader campaign to counter what it calls growing national security risks from Cuba’s communist government, and to hold the regime and its backers accountable for their actions.

In his remarks, Rubio doubled down on the administration’s sharp criticism of the Cuban government, claiming that just 90 miles off the U.S. coast, Cuban leaders have reduced the island to economic ruin while opening it up to foreign intelligence, military, and terrorist activities that threaten U.S. interests. He added that additional sanctions designations will be rolled out in the coming days and weeks, warning that the campaign is only in its early stages.

The secretary of state positioned GAESA as the central node of what he called Cuba’s kleptocratic communist system, noting that the conglomerate controls an estimated 40 percent or more of the island’s entire national economy. Rubio alleged that GAESA operates across multiple key economic sectors not to generate broad-based prosperity for the Cuban people, but solely to enrich a small circle of corrupt ruling elites. He claimed that as ordinary Cubans grapple with widespread food insecurity, inadequate healthcare, and crumbling critical infrastructure including the national power grid, most of GAESA’s profits are siphoned off into hidden offshore bank accounts held by elite figures. Citing recent independent public estimates, Rubio said GAESA’s annual revenues likely exceed three times the Cuban state’s official public budget, and that the conglomerate controls as much as $20 billion in undeclared illicit assets globally. Lastres, he added, directly oversees the management of these hidden international assets.

Turning to MNSA, Rubio said the joint venture between Canadian firm Sherritt International Corporation and Cuban state-owned enterprise La Compania General de Niquel exploits the island’s natural resource wealth to line the pockets of regime leaders, at the direct expense of ordinary Cuban citizens. He also noted that the company operates assets that were originally seized by the Cuban government from U.S. citizens and corporations decades ago, a longstanding point of contention between the two nations.

As part of the sanctions announcement, Rubio confirmed that all property and financial interests held by the designated actors that are located within the U.S. or controlled by any U.S. person are immediately frozen, and must be reported to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the agency responsible for enforcing U.S. sanctions programs. Any entity that is 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more of the sanctioned individuals or groups is also subject to the same blocking measures.

All transactions involving the sanctioned parties carried out by U.S. persons or conducted within or transiting through U.S. jurisdiction are prohibited, unless explicitly authorized via a general or specific license issued by OFAC. These prohibitions extend to any contributions of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of a blocked party, as well as the receipt of any such contributions from sanctioned actors.

Rubio also issued a stark warning to third-country actors, saying that any foreign individual or entity that conducts transactions with the newly designated parties, or operates in any of the Cuban sectors identified as high-risk in Executive Order 14404 — including energy, defense, metals and mining, financial services, and security — faces significant risk of being added to U.S. sanctions lists themselves. “Non-U.S. persons, including foreign financial institutions, should proceed with caution in any dealings with a party sanctioned under this authority,” Rubio said. “Actions to return assets to a sanctioned party or transfer them to another jurisdiction for potential use by the target could expose non-U.S. persons to significant sanctions risk.”

The sanctions align with longstanding U.S. trade restrictions on Cuba enforced under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), the foundational regulatory framework for the decades-long U.S. embargo on Cuba managed by OFAC. The CACR prohibits any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in transactions involving property in which Cuba or a Cuban national holds an interest, unless a specific exemption or authorization is granted. All existing blocked property under the CACR remains frozen following the new designations, Rubio confirmed.

Rubio emphasized that the new sanctions advance multiple core policy objectives of the second Trump administration, not only fulfilling the authority granted by Executive Order 14404, but also advancing the goals of Executive Order 14380 — which addresses perceived threats to the U.S. from the Cuban government — and National Security Presidential Memorandum 5. That memorandum directs the executive branch to prioritize efforts to improve human rights, establish rule of law, build free market systems, and advance democratic governance in Cuba.