标签： Trinidad and Tobago

A major regional trade union body has drawn a clear line in the sand with the national government, raising stiff opposition to a proposal that would deploy convicted prison inmates to clean and upkeep public spaces, arguing the plan threatens the livelihoods of more than 40,000 out-of-work citizens waiting for gainful employment.

National Trade Union Centre (Natuc) General Secretary Michael Annisette laid out the organisation’s position in a formal public statement, clarifying that the union does not oppose meaningful offender rehabilitation programmes. Instead, Annisette stressed that any inmate work initiative must be structured first and foremost to equip participants with marketable, certified skills that will help them secure legal, stable employment after they complete their sentences. He pushed back against framing inmate work as a cheap, convenient replacement for paid labour that would otherwise go to unemployed residents.

The controversy sparked two weeks prior, when Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander first floated the proposal during a stakeholder meeting for the National Programme for the Upkeep of Public Spaces (NPUPS), held at St John’s Community Centre in Tunapuna. Alexander confirmed that offenders sentenced to hard labour would eventually be integrated into public maintenance work as part of their court-ordered sentences. The NPUPS initiative, launched by the government, is designed to boost municipal workforce capacity and keep community spaces clean and functional, with tasks ranging from street and drain clearing to general public space upkeep.

Annisette is demanding the government provide clear answers on what tangible benefits inmates will gain from the proposed work. Before the policy moves forward, he says the administration must address a core question: If inmates are tasked with public space maintenance, what nationally recognised credentials, skills, and post-release employment pathways will they walk away with that they did not have before entering prison? Without a clear, satisfactory answer, Annisette argues the initiative will be seen as nothing more than a cost-cutting measure disguised as correctional reform, rather than a genuine effort at rehabilitation.

“Cleaning drains, cutting grass, clearing roadsides and maintaining public spaces may constitute useful work, but work alone is not rehabilitation,” Annisette said in the statement.

The Natuc leader outlined that any legitimate rehabilitation-focused inmate work programme must integrate foundational skill building such as literacy and numeracy training, life skills education, occupational health and safety certification, hands-on vocational instruction, and nationally recognised qualifications aligned with existing in-demand job openings. He emphasized that the goal of correctional programming should be to prepare inmates to succeed as law-abiding citizens after release, not just teach them to complete manual tasks.

“An inmate should not simply leave prison knowing how to perform a task. That individual should leave better equipped to obtain lawful employment and remain outside the criminal justice system,” he added.

Annisette contextualized the union’s opposition against the country’s current strained labour market, which already leaves more than 40,000 displaced workers searching for meaningful, sustainable work. He says the government has a core responsibility to create quality jobs for law-abiding citizens, and must explain how the inmate labour proposal aligns with that obligation.

Stressing that Natuc is not against offender rehabilitation broadly, Annisette framed the union’s position as a push for “fairness, balance and responsible public policy.” He pointed out that thousands of unemployed citizens are actively seeking work, displaced workers are struggling to support their families, and thousands of existing workers already earn their living in public maintenance, sanitation, landscaping and related fields.

Natuc has pledged to strongly oppose any arrangement that uses inmate labour — whether directly or indirectly — to eliminate existing jobs, push down wages, undermine collective bargaining agreements, avoid hiring unemployed workers, reduce available job openings for citizens, or replace decent paid work with low-cost or unpaid inmate labour. “The rehabilitation of one group in society must not be achieved through the economic displacement of another,” Annisette said.

Beyond labour market concerns, the union is also calling on the government to ensure any future inmate work programme adheres to international standards for prison labour, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, widely known as the Nelson Mandela Rules. Under these global standards, prison work must never be exploitative, and must prioritize rehabilitation, vocational skill building, and preparation for post-release employment.

Annisette argued that the success of any inmate labour programme should not be measured by how much public maintenance work is completed — such as the number of cleaned highways or cleared drains. Instead, success should be measured by outcomes: how many inmates earned recognized qualifications, developed marketable skills, secured quality employment after release, successfully reintegrated into society, and did not reoffend.

Natuc also raised key practical and public safety concerns about deploying convicted inmates to work in public spaces. Annisette said comprehensive risk assessments must be conducted to screen which inmates are appropriate for public work placements, alongside investments in trained on-site supervision, secure transportation, proper tools and safety equipment, formal occupational safety protocols, emergency response plans, and enough correctional staff and resources to keep everyone safe.

The union warned that members of the public, prison officers, other public employees, and contracted workers should not be exposed to avoidable risks caused by inadequate planning and under-resourcing. To address these gaps and ensure all perspectives are heard, Natuc is calling for full consultation with organized labour, employer groups, correctional authorities, and all relevant stakeholders before any implementation moves forward.

“Rehabilitation should create productive citizens. It should never create displaced workers,” Annisette concluded.

A planned expansion of community policing across Trinidad and Tobago has become the center of a conflict between central and local government authorities, even as law enforcement leaders prepare to bring new facilities online. Deputy Commissioner of Police Junior Benjamin has confirmed that the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) is eagerly anticipating the launch of multiple new permanent police posts, including a key location at Eddie Hart Savannah in Tacarigua. When reporters from the Express visited the Tacarigua site this week, the fully built structure was found shuttered and non-operational, with only a single security guard stationed in a nearby blue tent, indicating that final opening procedures are still underway. Benjamin emphasized in an interview that the TTPS is committed to leveraging these new facilities to their full potential once they open. The new posts, he explained, are designed to address two longstanding gaps in local public safety: they will cut emergency response times dramatically during critical incidents, and give neighborhood residents a more accessible local hub to file reports and access routine police services without traveling long distances to distant precincts. Despite broad support for the goal of expanding policing access, the project has run into opposition from the Tunapuna-Piarco Regional Corporation, whose chairman Josiah Austin says the construction of the Tacarigua post violated local regulatory laws. Austin told reporters that the regional corporation issued both a formal notice of violation and a stop-work order before construction was completed, but central government officials proceeded with the project regardless, choosing to ignore the legal directives. Austin stressed that his corporation does not oppose the creation of these new police posts as a policy initiative – the objection is centered on the process the central government used to advance the Tacarigua site. He called on the government to ensure that future construction of additional posts includes required consultation with local governing bodies and relevant state agencies, such as the National Gas Company (NGC). Austin noted that the ongoing standoff should serve as a clear reminder that central government must adhere to all existing legal requirements when undertaking public projects within jurisdictions managed by local authorities. ‘At some point they would learn that Central Government cannot bully Local Government, as the law is the law and the right thing is the right thing,’ Austin said. Last week, Austin first raised public concerns about the project, noting that the Tacarigua site lacked pre-construction consultation with the corporation and was built over decommissioned NGC gas lines. The NGC has since released a statement confirming that the lines are no longer active and do not present any public safety hazard at the site. The broader 30-post initiative was first announced two weeks ago by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who framed the program as a mobile joint army-police expansion that will boost public safety across both islands of Trinidad and Tobago. The plan has already drawn backing from other local government leaders, including Chaguanas Mayor Faaiq Mohammed and Tobago House of Assembly Chief Secretary Farley Augustine. However, it has also faced scrutiny beyond the local government dispute: opposition attorneys have formally submitted a request to the Office of the Procurement Regulator, calling for a full investigation into the procurement processes used for the construction and site preparation work across all 30 planned posts.

A growing political controversy has emerged in Trinidad and Tobago over the leadership vacuum at the top of the national police service, following the reported departure of substantive Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro from the country. The controversy was ignited after Marvin Gonzales, chairman of the Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), publicly demanded answers from top government officials about Guevarro’s whereabouts and the lack of clarity around a formal interim appointment.

Gonzales raised the questions during a press briefing held Saturday, following the PNM’s General Council meeting hosted at Balisier House in Port of Spain. He called on both Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander and Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who also leads the National Security Council, to provide full transparency to the public. Pointing to unconfirmed reports that Guevarro had left Trinidad and Tobago’s jurisdiction, Gonzales pressed for key details: the confirmed location of the sitting commissioner, the exact date he departed, and whether a legally recognized acting commissioner had been put in place to manage the service during his absence. He also questioned whether the Police Service Commission (PSC), the body tasked with police leadership oversight, had followed required protocols to greenlight an interim appointment.

Hours after Gonzales’ press conference, local media outlet Express reached out to Deputy Commissioner of Police Junior Benjamin, currently the most senior serving officer in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS). Benjamin, who previously stepped into the acting commissioner role briefly in October 2025, confirmed that he has not yet received any formal legal instrument appointing him to serve as interim commissioner. While he declined to share detailed comments ahead of a scheduled meeting on Monday – the details of which he also kept undisclosed – he did confirm that he has previously assumed the top role on an interim basis during the tenures of past substantive commissioners Erla Harewood-Christopher and McDonald Jacob. Such temporary leadership arrangements, he noted, are not unprecedented within the TTPS, but he opted to hold additional comment until after his upcoming meeting.

Former Police Commissioner Gary Griffith has become the highest-profile critic of the current situation, arguing that the leadership confusion exposes a critical structural flaw in the national legislation governing interim police commissioner appointments. In a public social media statement over the weekend, Griffith dismissed the current legal requirement that Parliament must convene to approve any acting appointment as “absurd and ridiculous.”

Griffith explained that under current rules, every time the sitting commissioner leaves the country temporarily – whether for official overseas travel, medical treatment, or even a short sick leave – the matter must be brought before Parliament for a formal vote on an interim replacement. He argued this is an outlier in global governance, noting that it is likely the only jurisdiction in the world that requires parliamentary approval even if the commissioner is ill for just 24 hours. To illustrate the risk of the current framework, Griffith offered a hypothetical scenario: if the commissioner falls seriously ill on a Friday night immediately after Parliament adjourns for a two-month break, there is no existing legal mechanism to appoint an interim leader for that entire 60-day window. Compounding this gap, he added, current law does not automatically default the role to the most senior serving deputy commissioner, even though there are three sitting deputy commissioners on the force: Benjamin, Curt Simon, and Suzette Martin. The resulting ambiguity, Griffith stressed, has left both rank-and-file police officers and ordinary Trinidad and Tobago citizens without clear answers about who is currently in charge of the national police service.

A high-stakes wage dispute is escalating at Trinidad and Tobago’s state-owned telecommunications provider Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago (TSTT), with Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath drawing a firm line against pressure from the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU), rejecting claims that a 10% pay increase was ever under negotiation.

Speaking to local media outlet Express on Monday, Padarath emphasized that the government will not be coerced or intimidated by the union’s aggressive tactics, amid growing threats of industrial action ahead of a planned union action this week. The conflict comes on the heels of a landmark financial report for TSTT and its subsidiary Amplia Communications Ltd, which delivered the pair’s strongest annual earnings in 17 years. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, the group posted an after-tax net profit of $214 million, marking a 103% jump from the $106 million profit recorded in the 2025 fiscal year.

Padarath credited the current United National Congress (UNC) administration’s strategic overhauls for the financial turnaround, noting that the improvement was no accidental stroke of good fortune. “We’ve been changing the management model, the strategies from within the company, looking for new areas of investment and also managing the debt portfolio of the company,” he explained. While he acknowledged the union’s mandate to advocate for its members’ financial interests, he warned against short-sighted demands that put the company’s long-term viability at risk. “It cannot be a situation where we live for today and let tomorrow see about itself. It has to be that we think long term,” Padarath said, adding that sustainable profitability is critical to protecting long-term employment for TSTT workers across Trinidad and Tobago. He reaffirmed that at no point has a 10% wage increase been proposed during negotiations, calling claims to the contrary deliberately misleading.

The dispute escalated late last week, after TSTT warned the CWU that any industrial action targeting the firm would violate the Industrial Relations Act. As a classified essential service, telecommunications is barred from work stoppages that would disrupt public access to critical infrastructure. But CWU Secretary General Joanne Ogeer pushed back against the warning, asserting the union would act within the bounds of the law and declaring “heads will roll come Wednesday.”

Beyond the TSTT conflict, Padarath also addressed an ongoing wage impasse at the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA), where the Public Services Association (PSA) has raised public frustration over the slow pace of negotiations, missing cost documentation, and broken communication with the ministry. Padarath stressed that the UNC-led government, which has roots in the national labour movement, remains fully committed to upholding worker rights and resolving the dispute. He framed the current impasse as a procedural and communication breakdown, not a refusal to honour agreed terms, noting “we have not reneged from any of our agreements with the PSA. Instead, we are working out the details.” He gave a formal assurance that all outstanding issues would be resolved quickly, adding that the disagreements over process can be addressed through collaborative dialogue.

The minister also launched a sharp rebuke of opposition MP Marvin Gonzales of the People’s National Movement (PNM), who last Friday called on the government to immediately order WASA to issue retroactive wage increases to workers, blaming both the UNC government and PSA leadership for the impasse and failing the authority’s workers. Padarath accused Gonzales of exploiting the labour dispute for cheap political gain, saying the opposition was hoping to capitalize on worker frustration to boost their electoral prospects. He dismissed Gonzales as a cowardly politician seeking only soundbites, contrasting the opposition’s approach with the UNC administration’s focus on tangible, long-term solutions. “That is not the policy of a United National Congress administration led by the Honourable Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Instead, we are looking for real tangible solutions and to bring a resolution, a quick resolution to this matter,” he said.

Padarath also hit back at the PNM’s legacy at WASA, noting that he inherited a deeply dysfunctional organization after 10 years of PNM rule. While he admitted significant work remains to fix the agency, he pointed to major progress made in just one year of UNC leadership. “I inherited a mess at the organisation. And what they failed to do in ten years, we have made a lot of advancements in the one year that we have been there. But obviously, there’s a lot more to be done,” Padarath said, committing to continue addressing the issue responsibly rather than engaging in what he called the opposition’s “foolishness.”

A growing legal crisis has emerged over systemic failures in providing court-appointed legal representation to low-income individuals held under preventive detention orders (PDOs), with attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan warning that an entire group of disadvantaged detainees are being stripped of their constitutional right to challenge their custody.

Ramkhalwhan laid out the allegations in an August 14 pre-action protocol letter addressed to Attorney General John Jeremie, Review Tribunal chairman David Alexander, and Legal Aid and Advisory Authority chairman Renuka Rambhajan, outlining the case of his client Jamaalee Wilson, a 20-year-old man held at the Eastern Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre since July 18 under a PDO signed by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander. The minister’s order alleges Wilson is a senior member of an organized criminal gang linked to firearms, violent offenses including home invasions and armed robberies, and imminent plans to escalate attacks on the public, justifying detention to protect public safety.

The core of the legal dispute turns on a little-noticed provision of the 2026 Emergency Powers Regulations (EPR): Paragraph 7(5) of the EPR Schedule explicitly grants the Review Tribunal— the body tasked with reviewing PDO detentions— the authority to assign a legal representative to indigent detainees, when the tribunal determines legal aid is necessary to carry out its justice functions. Regulation 7(6) further specifies that costs for assigned counsel are to be covered by parliamentary appropriations, within existing spending limits.

According to Ramkhalwhan’s letter, Wilson’s mother Abena Wilson formally requested an urgent review of her son’s detention on July 29, explicitly notifying the tribunal that her family could not afford to hire a private attorney. The next day, the tribunal secretary redirected her to the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority (LA AA) to secure representation. Over the following two weeks, Abena Wilson repeatedly contacted and visited the LAAA to request assistance, but the authority uniformly declined support. The LAAA confirmed it does not provide legal representation for preventive detention matters or challenges before the Review Tribunal, leaving Wilson with no access to counsel.

Ramkhalwhan argues the Review Tribunal failed entirely to uphold its statutory obligations. Not only did the body wrongly shift its responsibility for assigning counsel to an agency that lacks authority to act in these cases, but it also never informed Wilson of his right to apply for court-assigned representation under Paragraph 7(5), never considered whether legal aid was required for the fair conduct of his detention review, and never issued any reasoning for declining to appoint counsel. “The power conferred by paragraph 7(5) is simply not mentioned. On the material available to me, the Review Tribunal did not consider it at all,” Ramkhalwhan wrote in the letter.

The attorney emphasizes the problem extends far beyond Wilson’s individual case. He says Wilson has reported that dozens of other PDO detainees at the Eastern Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre are also struggling to access information about securing legal aid to challenge their detentions. To date, no information, application forms, or lists of available attorneys have been provided to indigent detainees, and no tribunal or government officials have visited facilities to explain the process for accessing court-appointed counsel.

Ramkhalwhan called the current setup a system that exclusively penalizes low-income people, noting that detainees with the means to hire private counsel are guaranteed the right to retain an attorney at their own cost under existing regulations. Indigent detainees, by contrast, are directed to a non-functional process with an agency that cannot assist, leaving them completely locked out of the legal system. He added that the vast majority of people held under PDOs come from the country’s most economically marginalized communities — the exact group Paragraph 7(5) was designed to protect.

The Review Tribunal was given until 4 p.m. on an unspecified recent date to appoint counsel for Wilson, and as of the latest reporting, attempts to reach Ramkhalwhan for comment on whether a response had been received were unsuccessful. Ramkhalwhan has warned that if the issue is not resolved immediately, he will move forward with judicial review and constitutional proceedings, arguing the tribunal’s failure to appoint counsel is unlawful and unconstitutional. He contends the tribunal’s decision to redirect Wilson to the LAAA, and its refusal to exercise its own statutory power to assign counsel, is ultra vires (beyond the legal power granted to the tribunal under the EPR) and violates Wilson’s constitutional right to equal protection of the law under Section 4(b) of the national constitution, effectively rendering the only legal protection for indigent detainees completely unenforceable.

A heritage protection dispute has emerged between Trinidad and Tobago’s National Trust and the country’s Parliament, centered on unauthorised damage to a 230-year-old historic fountain located within the grounds of Port of Spain’s iconic Cabildo Building. In a formal four-page correspondence addressed to House Clerk Brian Caesar and dated August 3, 2026, National Trust Council representative Mark Franco has laid out the organisation’s non-negotiable position: only a complete, authentic restoration of the nationally protected heritage structure meets legal and heritage standards, and any lesser outcome would weaken both the rule of law and the country’s commitment to preserving its historical patrimony.

The formal demand comes after a joint inspection of the Cabildo Building on July 23, followed by closed-door discussions between National Trust officials and parliamentary representatives. Franco opened the letter by reaffirming the legal status of the site: the Cabildo Building, completed in 1802, is designated a Grade II Property of Interest under the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago Act, a classification that extends statutory protection to every significant feature of the site, including the rear courtyard fountain at the center of the dispute.

Franco went on to outline the clear legal framework governing the site. Section 27 of the National Trust Act explicitly criminalises any alteration, damage, or destruction of a listed heritage property without prior written approval from the organisation, and grants courts the authority to order full compensation for repairs or restoration. “Restoration is not a remedy the Trust invented; it is the solution Parliament itself wrote into law,” Franco noted, adding that the organisation is only seeking the outcome already laid out as the standard consequence of unauthorised works under existing legislation. The core legal issue at hand, the Trust emphasised, is the complete lack of prior consultation or written approval for the works that caused the damage. While the organisation has not made any claims of bad faith on the part of Parliament, the absence of required consent is legally definitive in this case.

Crucially, Franco stressed that Parliament itself is not exempt from the requirements of the law. Section 3(1) of the Act explicitly binds the State to its provisions, meaning no government department, agency, or branch of the legislature can ignore its heritage protection obligations. “Parliament intentionally gave this legislation constitutional weight, and this is an opportunity to show it abides by the laws it has created,” Franco wrote. He added that upholding the requirement for full restoration would do more to bolster public trust in the rule of law than almost any other action, while failing to do so would erode that trust more than any other omission.

Beyond the legal dispute, the letter underscores the irreplaceable historical significance of both the building and the damaged fountain. The Cabildo Building is the only remaining example of 19th century colonial Spanish tropical civic architecture in Trinidad and Tobago, the sole surviving structure of its type from the period. The fountain, which is just years shy of its 230th anniversary, is an integral part of the building’s original 1802 design. It remains a functional example of Moorish-influenced hydraulic engineering, capturing rainwater from the courtyard and roof and directing it through brick-lined drainage channels running beneath the structure. Most notably, the hand-hewn stone blocks surrounding the fountain were cut by enslaved laborers working at the Laventille quarry. “Their destruction is not merely a loss to our built architecture; it is the erasure of ancestral evidence that no amount of money can ever replace,” Franco wrote.

The organisation has warned that time is critical for a successful authentic restoration. Every day that removed original stones and broken basin fragments remain unsecured and unprotected, the chance of a true, historically accurate restoration shrinks, making immediate action to secure the surviving original fabric a top priority.

While Franco acknowledged that full restoration will require significant public expenditure, he argued that the long-term costs of leaving the damage unaddressed would be far greater. Accepting the current damaged state, he warned, would set a dangerous precedent that would allow future violations of heritage protection laws to be waved through after unauthorised work is already completed. If that precedent stands, the national register of protected heritage properties would only offer protection on paper, with no real enforcement power.

Franco went on to outline the full range of consequences that would follow a failure to carry out full restoration: a damaging legal precedent for all future protected heritage sites, a systemic weakening of the rule of law across the country, damage to the National Trust’s credibility as a statutory heritage regulator, harm to Trinidad and Tobago’s compliance obligations under the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, and widespread erosion of public confidence in government accountability. If the State itself violates the laws that bind it and then avoids the legislatively required remedy, Franco argued, the moral authority of the State to enforce regulatory laws against private citizens would be severely undermined. The letter also warned that leaving the damage unresolved could weaken any future World Heritage nomination the country submits for its cultural sites.

Reflecting on the Cabildo Building’s history, Franco noted that the structure was previously saved from decline through public restoration efforts. For the current government to damage what a previous administration restored, and then refuse to make amends, would be a damaging legacy no public institution should want to leave behind. Conversely, moving forward with decisive full restoration would send a clear message that the Republic honors both its laws and its irreplaceable cultural and historical patrimony.

To resolve the dispute, the National Trust has put forward six specific demands for Parliament to act: immediately halt all further work that could impact the remaining historic fabric of the fountain and building, secure and properly store all original material removed from the fountain during the unauthorised works, conduct a joint conservation assessment between the Trust and parliamentary teams, develop and fully fund a comprehensive authentic restoration plan, agree to a firm implementation timetable for the restoration within 14 days, and adopt a permanent formal protocol requiring mandatory consultation with the National Trust before any work is undertaken on state-owned listed heritage properties.