标签： Trinidad and Tobago

Roughly 300 citizens of Trinidad and Tobago build their lives nearly 9,000 miles from home across Japan, a gap that has grown increasingly problematic amid more than six decades of formal diplomatic relations between the two nations: to date, the Caribbean nation has never established a permanent diplomatic outpost in Tokyo. Currently, the closest diplomatic mission responsible for Japanese affairs is based 3,000 miles away in New Delhi, India, and the mandate to open a consulate or embassy on Japanese soil rests solely with the government of Trinidad and Tobago, local media outlet *Express* has confirmed. The question of a new mission came into focus during an official visit by Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi to Port of Spain this Friday, where he held bilateral talks with his Trinidadian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sean Sobers. While top Japanese foreign affairs officials confirmed that the creation of a Trinidadian mission in Tokyo was not raised during these high-level talks, they noted that a permanent presence would deliver widespread benefits to both nations. “Trinidad and Tobago has managed Japanese affairs through its New Delhi mission since the 1970s, while Japan maintains a full diplomatic mission in Port of Spain. If your government were to establish an independent mission in Tokyo, it would be very helpful for our bilateral cooperation,” explained Toshihiro Kitamura, Director General for Press and Public Diplomacy at Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in an interview with *Express*. The absence of a local mission creates tangible administrative barriers that slow bilateral cooperation already. *Express* confirmed with multiple officials that without a registered diplomatic mission operating in Japan, the government of Trinidad and Tobago is unable to open an official bank account on Japanese territory. This technical barrier has repeatedly complicated Tokyo’s efforts to deliver direct financial assistance, including development grants, to Port of Spain. Over the past decade, the Japanese government has donated millions of dollars to support Trinidad and Tobago’s priorities, ranging from climate adaptation to disaster resilience infrastructure. But due to the lack of a local diplomatic presence, all funding must be routed through third-party international agencies rather than delivered directly to the Trinidadian government. For example, when Japan provided funding to address Trinidad and Tobago’s growing sargassum seaweed crisis, the donation was disbursed through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) rather than sent directly to Port of Spain. Japan also frequently uses the Caricom Secretariat as an intermediary for disaster prevention assistance, Kitamura confirmed. The gap also leaves Trinidad and Tobago’s own citizens residing in Japan without timely access to consular support. During a reporting trip to Tokyo in late 2025, *Express* spoke with local Trinidadian nationals and residents with close ties to the Caribbean nation, many of whom expressed growing anxiety over the lack of on-the-ground consular services. One anonymous participant in the Japan Exchange and Teaching programme told reporters: “If a personal emergency or legal issue arises here, I would have to travel all the way to India to get the consular assistance I need. That uncertainty is really concerning.” *Express* reached out to Foreign Minister Sean Sobers—who traveled to Japan last year to attend the 2025 Osaka World Expo—to request comment on whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is actively considering the establishment of a permanent diplomatic mission in Tokyo. As of publication, no response has been received from Sobers or his office.

The second-highest ranking diplomat at the U.S. Department of State, Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau, touched down in Trinidad and Tobago on Wednesday for an official working visit centered on deepening long-standing bilateral ties between the two nations. High on his meeting agenda are key collaborative areas: cross-border energy strategy, joint security initiatives, and expanded economic partnership.

Upon his arrival at the port of entry, Landau was formally welcomed by Sean Sobers, Trinidad and Tobago’s Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs, alongside Philip Kern, the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires based in the country. Over the course of his two-day stop, Landau is scheduled to hold high-level talks with Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. The two leaders are set to align on mutual energy and security objectives, as well as map out new pathways to grow mutually beneficial economic cooperation between Washington and Port of Spain.

On the second day of his stay, Landau will also take part in a formal ribbon-cutting inauguration for Ibis Steel Company T&T Ltd, marking the opening of the new regional industrial operation.

According to official statements from the U.S. State Department, Landau’s stop in Trinidad and Tobago is just one segment of a broader multi-country regional tour that will run through August 12. Following his engagements in the twin-island nation, the deputy secretary will travel onward to Guyana for the next leg of the trip.

In Guyana, Landau is set to hold official meetings with President Irfaan Ali and senior members of the Guyanese cabinet. The discussions there will center on broadening bilateral economic collaboration, unlocking new cross-border investment opportunities, and ramping up joint work in high-priority strategic sectors, including energy development and critical mineral supply chains.

The State Department emphasized in its release that the regional tour underscores the Biden administration’s sustained commitment to strengthening diplomatic and economic partnerships across the Western Hemisphere. The trip is structured to advance shared priorities for all participating nations, from bolstering regional security frameworks and strengthening global energy resilience to driving inclusive economic prosperity across the Caribbean and South American region.

A prominent regional legal organization is sounding the alarm over unaddressed governance concerns at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), demanding that regional leaders launch an immediate, transparent investigation to prevent lasting damage to public trust in the court’s work.

The call for action comes from Kiel Taklalsingh, chairman of the Assembly of Central Legal Practitioners (ACLP), after he reviewed leaked internal correspondence between CCJ judges that was first reported by the Sunday Express. According to Taklalsingh, the exchange contained troubling red flags that raise serious questions about how the regional court is managed and hints at inappropriate efforts to sway judicial rulings.

In remarks outlining the organization’s position, Taklalsingh said the document left him with deep foreboding about the court’s internal operations. He argued the correspondence suggests the court could be at risk of authoritarian-style management, and pointed to what he described as possible improper interference with the independent decision-making of sitting judges.

Specifically, Taklalsingh highlighted the targeting of Justice Jamadar, a Trinidad and Tobago judge widely respected across the legal community. He noted that anyone with experience practicing law in the jurisdiction knows Jamadar as a fiercely independent, intellectually rigorous jurist and a dedicated defender of the rule of law — making any allegations of interference with his work particularly alarming.

These concerns cannot be brushed aside or left unaddressed, Taklalsingh emphasized. He is urging all Caribbean prime ministers and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), the regional governing body that oversees the CCJ, to move forward with a formal probe without delay.

“Having seen and read what has been brought to light, I have no choice but to call upon Caribbean prime ministers and Caricom as a whole to launch an immediate investigation into these matters,” Taklalsingh said. He stressed that any probe must be conducted quickly, comprehensively, and openly to rebuild public trust in the institution, if that trust has already been shaken.

Taklalsingh acknowledged that the CCJ has spent years building a strong reputation and earning the trust of Caribbean populations, with long-term goals of becoming the final appellate apex court for all regional territories. The current allegations, if left unresolved, threaten to erase all of that hard-won progress, he warned.

If the issue is allowed to fester without a thorough public investigation, the consequences will stretch far beyond the immediate questions of court administration, he added. “If this problem is not dealt with thoroughly, if it is allowed to fester, unfortunately all of the hard work that the CCJ has done in the past will go to waste,” Taklalsingh said.

A high-profile political controversy in Trinidad and Tobago took a swift turn this week, when opposition Member of Parliament Camille Robinson-Regis issued a public apology to Shankar Bidaisee, chair of the country’s Urban Development Corporation (UDeCOTT), over incorrect statements she made during a Thursday press briefing. The apology came on the heels of a public warning from Bidaisee that legal action would be launched if Robinson-Regis did not retract and apologize for her remarks linking him to two controversial housing development contracts, a threat that was first reported in the *Sunday Express*.

Trinidad and Tobago is set to shake up its annual Independence Day celebrations this year, with the national parade moving to a new section of the iconic Queen’s Park Savannah, directly opposite the President’s House. The shift has drawn mixed reactions from political figures, with one opposition lawmaker framing the change as a long-overdue chance to reinvent national traditions while delivering millions in taxpayer savings, and a ruling party MP raising urgent alarms over potential harm to the park’s protected green spaces.

Shadow Member of Parliament for Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West Phillip Edward Alexander confirmed the venue change for the August 31 parade in an interview with local outlet Express on Wednesday, noting that the move is not a signal of a scaled-back celebration, but rather an opportunity to test a new, more cost-effective format for the national holiday.

For decades, the Independence Day parade has been hosted on a different stretch of the Queen’s Park Savannah, with senior government dignitaries including the Prime Minister gathering at the site’s historic Grand Stand to review the procession. Last year, however, the traditional parade and accompanying fireworks display were canceled entirely after the government imposed a national state of emergency to support ongoing security operations. Officials heeding security expert advice replaced the public event with a low-key National Day of Prayer and Reflection, leaving many citizens without the iconic annual celebration.

Alexander argued that the break from tradition created the perfect opening to reimagine how the country marks its independence. He noted that the new, tree-lined venue opposite the President’s House offers naturally shaded viewing areas for spectators and a more scenic backdrop for the procession, qualities that could turn the one-time experimental change into a permanent improvement. “This could very well be a grand reinvention of the parade in a nice picturesque part of the Savannah. It is a really good location for the event. I am surprised it was not done before,” Alexander said.

Beyond aesthetic improvements, Alexander highlighted a major financial benefit to the relocation: the existing Carnival North Stand remains in place at the traditional parade route, and moving the Independence Day event eliminates the need to fully dismantle the stand ahead of the parade and rebuild it ahead of the annual Carnival celebration. Alexander estimates that this annual dismantling and reconstruction process costs the country roughly TT $5 million, a sum that can be redirected to other pressing public needs if the venue change becomes permanent. “That is a substantial saving,” he noted, adding that the new format could deliver a better experience for attendees while cutting unnecessary public spending.

Pointing to the 2026 Trinidad and Tobago Carnival as evidence that updating long-held traditions can produce positive results, Alexander noted that the government’s new free-admission Flava Village culinary and cultural hub was met with initial skepticism but quickly became a fan-favorite addition to the festival, with attendees calling for it to be hosted year-round. “Everything this government has done so far has been bigger and better than what obtained before,” Alexander said, urging citizens to approach the parade change with an open mind rather than pre-judging the new format. “Change is good. Change can be beneficial. We have been carrying on a certain way for some time and now we have the opportunity to experiment with different ways of doing things, better ways of doing things. This new location may become something we never knew we always needed,” he added, saying he is eager to see the reinvented parade come to life on August 31.

Not all political figures have welcomed the change, however. Stuart Young, the incumbent MP for Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West, took to Facebook earlier this week to raise urgent environmental concerns after observing active construction at the new parade site, including piles of construction aggregate, a steamroller, and work on what appeared to be a substantial new permanent structure.

Young called on the ruling Kamla Persad Bissessar government to provide immediate transparency around the work, asking multiple pointed questions about the project: what structure is being erected, what paving work is planned for the green space, is the construction directly tied to the relocated Independence Day parade, who is funding and carrying out the work, and what long-term impact will the development have on the Queen’s Park Savannah’s protected green areas? “The green spaces in our beloved Savannah should not be destroyed and desecrated. What is taking place? I look forward to urgent answers,” Young wrote alongside photos of the active construction site.

Port of Spain Mayor Chinua Alleyne echoed Young’s concerns, noting that any permanent damage to the Queen’s Park Savannah’s green spaces would have a lasting negative impact on capital city residents. Alleyne said he has already instructed the Port of Spain City Corporation’s leadership to launch an inquiry into the construction activity, though the section of the park where work is underway falls under the jurisdiction of the Horticultural Services Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, not the city corporation.

As of Wednesday, multiple requests for comment and information from Mayor Alleyne, Agriculture Minister Ravi Rattiram, and Defence Minister Wayne Sturge went unanswered, leaving key questions about the construction project and parade plans unresolved as the country approaches the August 31 holiday.

A deep internal crisis has erupted at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), after leaked internal correspondence exclusively obtained by the *Sunday Express* revealed that five out of the court’s six sitting judges have formally leveled serious accusations against its recently appointed president, Justice Winston Charles Anderson, accusing him of running the regional apex court in an authoritarian, dictatorial style that undermines judicial independence and democratic governance. What began as a dispute over a last-minute proposed judicial dress code quickly ballooned into a full-scale airing of long-simmering grievances, with judges warning that institutional discontent is nearing a breaking point if left unaddressed.

Justice Anderson, a Jamaican jurist, was sworn in as CCJ president in July 2025. Less than one year into his tenure, a June 22, 2026 email he sent to all sitting judges outlining a draft judicial dress code policy for discussion at the upcoming Regional Judicial Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) meeting four days later sparked the widespread backlash. The draft policy included a new requirement for judges to wear bench jackets during proceedings when not fully robed, but judges’ objections centered far more on process than the content of the policy itself.

Within minutes of Anderson’s email being sent, Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji of Nigeria replied all, pushing back against the unilateral approach. He argued that the full bench of judges must debate and approve any policy affecting their professional practices before it is brought to the RJLSC, which holds mandate over administrative staff rather than sitting judges. Eboe-Osuji demanded that Anderson pull the proposal from the RJLSC agenda to allow for full judicial consultation, a request Anderson rejected, noting only that any judge-submitted comments would be passed to the commission for consideration.

Jamaican Justice Chantal Ononaiwu quickly joined the criticism, echoing calls for full pre-submission consultation. She questioned the sudden urgency behind the new dress code requirement, pointing out that the court had functioned without a formal policy for its entire existence up to that point, and raised flags about the material change to existing courtroom attire practices that the draft would impose. In response to the growing pushback, Anderson agreed to hold a meeting with the full bench before the RJLSC discussion, but the concession did not ease broader tensions.

Over the following 48 hours, the remaining three sitting judges joined the growing chorus of opposition, expanding criticism far beyond the dress code proposal to systemic failures of Anderson’s leadership. Guyanese Justice Arif Bulkan sided with the initial critics, noting that a rigid, one-size-fits-all dress code could have negative impacts on religious minority judges, and emphasized that inclusive process is critical to maintaining collegial trust on a multi-judge bench. Trinidad and Tobago Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee backed this position, pointing to the collaborative, months-long consultation process used by former president Adrian Saunders to revise the court’s Code of Judicial Conduct, and called for the same transparent approach to be applied to the dress code policy. She also echoed Bulkan’s concern about protecting the court’s religious and ethnic diversity, noting that no institutional policy should undermine that foundational value.

The most serious allegations came from Trinidad and Tobago Justice Peter Jamadar, who expanded the discussion to detail what he called a toxic work environment created by Anderson’s leadership, directly accusing the president of interfering with core judicial decision-making processes. Jamadar stated that he has repeatedly experienced disregard for his judicial functions, with two recent ongoing cases illustrating the pattern: the Jeremy Enriquez and Anand Ramlogan trilogy of matters, where he was given an unreasonable timeline to review what was presented as an agreed consolidated draft judgment, and the Mohamed v MOHA, AG, and Magistrate extradition case, where he said Anderson attempted to influence the opinions of colleagues who held differing positions.

Jamadar warned of creeping anti-democratic patterns in Anderson’s governance that pose a direct threat to judicial independence and the fair administration of justice across all jurisdictions that rely on the CCJ. He emphasized that his objections stem from a commitment to protecting the court’s integrity, noting that upholding his judicial oath required him to speak out against practices that undermine judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity.

In a subsequent response endorsing Jamadar’s claims, Eboe-Osuji amplified the accusations, stating that he had never witnessed such dictatorial governance of a judiciary in his decades of experience. He revealed that Anderson explicitly stated shortly after taking office that he did not view himself as running a democratic institution, and would govern the court according to his own judgment alone. Eboe-Osuji added additional examples of alleged interference, including the Barrow v Caricom case, where Anderson unilaterally tried to override long-standing CCJ conventions for handling divided judicial decisions without consulting colleagues, and the Mohamed extradition case, where Anderson attempted to force a court announcement at a time a clear majority of judges deemed inappropriate.

Eboe-Osuji closed by calling for an urgent closed-door meeting of all CCJ judges to address the growing discontent, warning that without immediate intervention, the crisis will escalate to an irreversible breaking point that will damage the court’s institutional reputation and ability to deliver justice across the Caribbean region.

A controversial sudden shake-up on a high-stakes regional legal panel at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ignited open conflict among senior justices, with serious accusations of executive overreach and threats to judicial independence now dividing the court.

In a June 26, 2026 email directive delivered without public explanation, CCJ President Winston Anderson notified sitting panel justices Chile Eboe-Osuji and Arif Bulkan that he had determined a restructuring of the panel hearing the high-profile D’Almada v Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Caricom case was “desirable”. Anderson removed Eboe-Osuji from the panel entirely, replacing him with four justices including himself: Denys Barrow, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Chantal Ononaiwu, and Arif Bulkan, who retained his spot.

Eboe-Osuji, who had already been part of the pre-hearing deliberations for the case, pushed back against his removal the same day Anderson’s order landed. He detailed a prior institutional agreement that directly tied his inclusion on the D’Almada panel to a long-running legal debate over a foundational regional precedent. According to Eboe-Osuji, during deliberations for the separate Barrow Referral matter, counsel had raised questions about whether the earlier Bhagwansingh ruling established a rule barring a national from bringing suit against their own state. Eboe-Osuji had pushed to clarify the relationship between Bhagwansingh and the 2009 TCL v Guyana ruling, which had formally affirmed the rule that citizens cannot sue their own state. Anderson had argued that the clarification did not belong in the Barrow Referral judgment, and that the issue would be directly addressed in the upcoming D’Almada case. To break the impasse, Justice Peter Jamadar had proposed that Eboe-Osuji retain his spot on the D’Almada panel to lead that discussion, a compromise Eboe-Osuji accepted when he agreed to drop his demand for an immediate ruling in the Barrow Referral matter.

“With D’Almada scheduled for a hearing next week, I’m sure you see difficulty with determining—with no reason indicated—that it is desirable to remove me from D’Almada,” Eboe-Osuji wrote in his immediate response.

Four days after the removal order, Jamadar became the second sitting justice to publicly challenge the decision, calling for urgent clarification from Anderson in an email copied to all new panel members. Jamadar pressed Anderson to confirm whether Eboe-Osuji’s removal was limited only to the D’Almada hearing, or if it extended to all upcoming panels, including informal proceedings where the official CCJ judicial robe is not required. The question tied to an ongoing internal dispute over dress codes: Anderson had previously proposed formalizing a mandatory robe rule to the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC), citing a need to uphold the court’s tradition and dignity, and had raised objections to Eboe-Osuji wearing formal traditional Nigerian attire to court.

Jamadar noted he was scheduled to sit alongside Eboe-Osuji just that same morning in the Robateau v Robateau case, an informal proceeding that did not require robes, and needed immediate clarity to avoid procedural disruption. He also reminded Anderson of the binding precedent set in the 2012 Khan v Mc Nicholls TT case, which touched on judicial dress codes and institutional procedures.

In a detailed seven-page letter sent to Anderson on July 2, copied to all CCJ judges, Eboe-Osuji issued a formal, scathing rebuke of the CCJ president’s actions, accusing Anderson of outright abuse of power and a deliberate campaign to undermine long-standing judicial independence at the regional court.

Eboe-Osuji claimed that immediately after taking office as CCJ president, Anderson launched a unilateral, single-minded effort to curb long-standing court practices, specifically banning judges from publishing separate concurring opinions in CCJ cases, and even dissenting opinions in Caribbean Court of Appeal Tribunal (CCAT) cases. The move came as a shock to many long-serving justices, Eboe-Osuji noted, because the CCJ had built a reputation for robust pluralism in judicial opinions prior to Anderson’s tenure.

He then laid out the inescapable conclusion he had drawn about the real motivation behind his removal from the D’Almada panel, arguing that the official claim tied to dress code was a thin pretext for a legal disagreement that threatens the court’s integrity.

Pointing to the inconsistent application of the alleged dress code policy—Anderson removed him from D’Almada but allowed him to sit on the earlier Robateau hearing the same week, which also did not require robes—Eboe-Osuji exposed the logical flaw in the dress code justification.

“The conclusion is inescapable that you removed me from D’Almada because you and I disagree on a point of law that foreseeably defines the fundamental question in that case,” he wrote. “You have been itching to reverse or chisel down the decision that all seven judges of the CCJ rendered in TCL vs Guyana 2009, when you were not yet at the court.”

Eboe-Osuji confirmed that Anderson, a former legal academic, has repeatedly stated publicly to fellow justices that he believes the landmark TCL v Guyana ruling was wrongly decided, a position Eboe-Osuji openly rejects. The core legal question at the heart of TCL is the central issue to be decided in D’Almada, a fact Anderson himself had acknowledged in prior discussions.

Addressing the dress code claims head-on, Eboe-Osuji noted that he has participated in more than 30 formal CCJ hearings since joining the court, the majority of which were held online and did not require judges to wear robes. He added that in the post-colonial modern era, it is widely accepted that judges may wear formal national attire or European-style business formal dress for court proceedings, rather than mandatory traditional British-style robes. The CCJ’s founding agreement does not grant the court’s president unilateral authority to impose dress rules, he argued, and any formal policy change should be agreed by the full body of judges.

Eboe-Osuji said he made no apology for wearing formal Nigerian attire, noting he had only done so on two occasions: one status conference and one judgment delivery, and no fellow judge raised any objection on either occasion. He also confirmed that Anderson had admitted no external parties, including litigants or their counsel, had raised concerns about his attire. Instead, Anderson told Eboe-Osuji the objection came from a junior judicial counsel working at the court—a non-judge staffer whose opinion had now led to the disciplinary removal of a senior sitting justice from a high-profile panel. The revelation, Eboe-Osuji made clear, was deeply surprising and damaging to the court’s institutional norms.