标签： Trinidad and Tobago

A years-long case of unlawful administrative action against a police officer has concluded with a landmark High Court ruling that vindicates the rights of public employees and reinforces constitutional safeguards against punitive action without due process. After more than four years of unpaid suspension that never resulted in criminal charges or formal disciplinary proceedings, Police Constable Miguel Jaikaran Singh has been granted more than $343,800 in compensatory damages by Justice Margaret Mohammed, who ruled that his extended suspension was illegal, unconstitutional, and had devolved into an unapproved penalty.

Singh was attached to the now-disbanded Special Operations Response Team (SORT) when he was placed on suspension effective January 13, 2022. The suspension was tied to an investigation into the 2021 in-custody deaths of Andrew Morris and Joel Balcon, two men arrested in connection with the high-profile kidnapping and murder of Andrea Bharatt. Court records show that Singh and other SORT officers were taken into custody and questioned over the deaths in April 2021, but Singh was released shortly after and never faced any criminal charges or formal disciplinary action connected to the case.

In her sweeping ruling, Justice Mohammed outlined multiple failures on the part of the Police Commissioner that rendered the suspension invalid from the start. First, the official suspension notice failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Regulation 152, as it provided Singh no clear details of the allegations against him. The judge noted that the evidence presented to the court contained no specification of the offense Singh was accused of committing, no rationale for the commissioner’s suspicion, and no justification for the suspension on grounds of public interest or protecting the reputation of the Police Service. “The claimant was suspended without being provided with any clear reasons for his suspension, which is unlawful,” Mohammed wrote in her judgment.

Beyond the flawed initial notice, the court found that the commissioner never conducted any regular review of Singh’s suspension over the entire four-year period. Legal frameworks for police suspensions outline that such a measure is only intended to be a temporary, interim step ahead of planned criminal or disciplinary proceedings, not a permanent status. The commissioner’s argument that an open investigation justified holding Singh on suspension indefinitely was rejected outright by the court.

Most critically, Justice Mohammed ruled that the extraordinary length of Singh’s suspension transformed a temporary administrative measure into a de facto punishment, which directly violates section 129(4) of the national Constitution. That constitutional provision explicitly states that no penalty may be imposed on a public servant outside of formal disciplinary proceedings. “The effect of the claimant’s suspension without the instituting of any disciplinary proceedings or the institution of any criminal charge for over four years has made the claimant’s suspension indefinite which has the effect of making it into a penalty,” the judgment explained.

While Singh continued to receive his base salary during the suspension, he was stripped of multiple work-related allowances. The court awarded him $263,802.56 to compensate for the lost allowances, which included commuted overtime, plain clothing, and meal benefits. An additional $80,000 was granted to cover non-pecuniary harm: Singh documented significant mental distress, public embarrassment, and professional humiliation stemming from the four-year limbo of his unproven suspension.

Justice Mohammed ultimately quashed the Police Commissioner’s December 29, 2021 suspension decision, declaring the entire measure illegal, null, void, and without legal effect. She also ordered the commissioner to cover all of Singh’s legal costs incurred throughout the case. Singh was represented by attorneys Gerald Ramdeen and Dayadai Harripaul, while the commissioner was represented by a legal team including Jinai Chong Sing, Janique Mitchell, Rachel Wright, and Justay Guerra.

As Trinidad and Tobago moves forward with a landmark national security plan to confront rising violent and gang-related crime, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has moved to reassure compliant residents that the sweeping new seven-district security framework poses no threat to ordinary citizens. The new framework, formalized under the proposed Special Operations Bill 2026, will deploy specialized dedicated police units across the country authorized to carry out targeted crackdowns against organized gangs, armed suspects and violent criminal networks, and parliamentary debate on the legislation is scheduled to kick off at 10:30 a.m. local time today ahead of a final vote.\n\nThe Prime Minister confirmed that all outstanding questions about the new legislation will be addressed during floor debates in both the lower and upper houses of parliament, emphasizing that the bill is expected to pass successfully, with daily life across the country continuing largely uninterrupted for law-abiding residents. Drawing on past policy success, Persad-Bissessar pointed to the previously implemented state of emergency, which she described as highly effective at curbing crime, and expressed confidence that the new Special Operations strategy will deliver equally strong results. When asked about the bill’s provision for establishing restricted “closed areas” in high-crime hotspots, the Prime Minister noted that policymakers will rely on empirical data to guide any such designations, adding that it remains too early in the process to determine how long any potential closed area would remain in effect.\n\nA review of the legislation by local outlet *Trinidad Express* confirms that the bill will remain in force for a full two years starting from the date it is officially proclaimed by the President. Structurally, the new bill draws heavily from the earlier Zones of Special Operations (ZOSO) Bill, which failed to gain enough parliamentary support to pass earlier this year. Unlike the previous proposal, however, the current iteration does not require a special supermajority to pass, meaning it can be approved with a simple majority of sitting lawmakers.\n\nThe legislation divides the entire country into seven distinct special policing districts, covering every populated region of both Trinidad and Tobago. District 1 includes Port of Spain, Diego Martin and San Juan/Laventille; District 2 covers Arima and Tunapuna-Piarco; District 3 encompasses Sangre Grande and Mayaro-Rio Claro; District 4 includes Chaguanas and Couva-Tabaquite-Talparo; District 5 covers San Fernando and Princes Town; District 6 includes Point Fortin, Siparia and Penal-Debe; and the entire island of Tobago makes up the seventh district.\n\nEach of the seven districts will be led by a dedicated Head of Special Operations, selected by the Commissioner of Police from officers holding at least the rank of Superintendent. Before formalizing the appointment, the Commissioner is required to consult with the Prime Minister, who retains the power to reject a candidate after consulting with relevant cabinet ministers and the Chief of Defence Staff. All personnel selected for special operations duties, including both police officers and participating military personnel, must complete mandatory training in human rights protocols, rules governing the use of force, community engagement practices and conflict de-escalation strategies.\n\nThe legislation also allows for the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force to support police operations, though any military deployment must be formally requested by the Commissioner of Police. Each district receiving military support will have a Head of Military Assistance, appointed by the Chief of Defence Staff from officers holding at least the rank of Major. Similar to the police appointment process, the Chief of Defence Staff must consult the Prime Minister before making the appointment, and the Prime Minister can reject the nomination after consulting relevant ministers and the Commissioner of Police.\n\nTo ensure accountability and coordinated action, the Commissioner of Police and Chief of Defence Staff are required to develop joint formal protocols governing police-military collaboration, including clear systems for verifying the identity of all participating personnel. Separate standard operating procedures (SOPs) must also be created for both police special operations and military assistance, with any personnel found violating SOPs facing disciplinary action.\n\nClocked in at 26 clauses plus a formal schedule, the bill authorizes targeted special operations that can be carried out by police alone or with military backup, and grants authority to declare areas facing extreme criminal activity as closed areas. Within these designated zones, police receive expanded powers to conduct warrantless searches, seize evidence, and make arrests and detentions. Authorities are also permitted to implement cordons and curfews, and require any person entering or exiting the area to hold a valid entry/exit permit.\n\nThe President holds the sole authority to declare a zone within a special operations district a closed area, and can only do so if presented with reasonable evidence that escalating violent crime – including homicides, shootings, kidnappings and gang activity – or the widespread possession of illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives or other weapons poses a direct threat to public safety and peace. The power can also be invoked if gangs have seized control of, or are actively intimidating, a local community, and only after ordinary law enforcement measures have proven unable to restore public safety and order.\n\nAny closed area declaration is issued as an executive Order that is subject to negative resolution by the House of Representatives, meaning lawmakers can vote to annul the order if they choose. Within seven days of issuing the declaration, the President must provide the Speaker of the House with a formal statement outlining the specific justifications for the order. While the House can annul the declaration at any time, no annulment motion can be introduced more than once every three months.\n\nOnce a closed area is declared, the district’s Head of Special Operations can implement physical access restrictions via barriers, roadblocks and other containment measures. With the exception of a small group of explicitly exempted officials, no person may enter or exit a closed area without a valid permit. Exempted individuals include the President, Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, members of parliament, Tobago House of Assembly members, municipal councillors, the Chief Justice and sitting Supreme Court judges, the Commissioner of Police, Chief of Defence Staff, district special operations commanders, and on-duty police and military personnel traveling to or from their assignments.\n\nViolating the permit requirement, or failing to comply with permit conditions without a reasonable excuse, carries a maximum penalty of a TT $50,000 fine and one year of imprisonment. Police may also establish internal and perimeter cordons around specific sites within closed areas using roadblocks and barriers; the Head of Special Operations is required to issue immediate public notice of any cordon, clearly marking its boundaries and outlining requirements for people inside and those seeking entry, with formal notice published in the official government Gazette within three days.\n\nThe President also holds authority to impose a curfew within a closed area, requiring all residents to remain inside their properties during specified hours unless they qualify for an exemption or hold a valid curfew permit. Breaching a curfew order carries the same maximum penalties as violating permit rules: a TT $50,000 fine and one year of imprisonment.

As Trinidad and Tobago’s recently concluded state of emergency (SoE) moves into the rearview mirror, senior political and academic figures are sounding alarms over two major unresolved issues: potential hundreds of millions in state liability for unlawful detentions, and systemic human rights risks stemming from the government’s use of preventive detention orders (PDOs).

People’s National Movement (PNM) Senator Sanjiv Boodhu is the latest to flag the long-term fiscal danger of the emergency measures, which ended Tuesday. In a telephone interview marking the end of the SoE, Boodhu laid out a clear warning: hundreds of individuals detained without criminal charges under PDOs are poised to file compensation claims against the state, a financial burden that will not fall on the current administration alone, but on future governments and coming generations.

“ You cannot detain 600 people under these orders, release them without any charges, and expect them to walk away without seeking damages for violated rights,” Boodhu argued. He drew direct parallels to the 2011 state of emergency, when the PNM inherited pending litigation after taking office and ultimately paid out millions of dollars in compensation to wrongfully detained individuals. Boodhu stressed that history is set to repeat itself without proactive accountability from the current government.

Beyond fiscal risk, Boodhu is calling for full independent auditing of the government’s official data on PDO detentions. Currently, public numbers fail to distinguish between detainees who were issued PDOs before criminal charges were filed, and those who were already facing charges when the preventive orders were implemented. He said the public deserves clear, verified data on how many detainees still have active court cases pending against them, a level of transparency the current administration has not provided. Boodhu also questioned the government’s claims that the SoE successfully reduced crime, calling for the release of granular, community-level crime statistics so citizens can independently evaluate whether the emergency measures delivered tangible public safety benefits. The debate comes as the government weighs advancing the Special Operations Bill (SOB), legislation that would create new targeted security powers for communities grappling with violent crime.

Joining the criticism, leading criminologist Dr. Randy Seepersad has raised fundamental human rights alarms over the confirmed detention numbers. Official data shows 574 people were detained under active PDOs during the SoE, with only 240 facing criminal charges and 334 released without ever being formally accused of a crime. Speaking during an appearance on CCN TV6’s *Morning Edition* on the day the SoE expired, Seepersad said the large share of uncharged detentions cannot be reconciled with basic human rights protections.

“If people are held in lengthy detention without ever being charged, that is a clear signal that the state did not have sufficient evidence to justify depriving them of their freedom in the first place,” Seepersad explained. He went on to outline the long-term, life-altering harm of unnecessary detention, especially for low-income workers who are primary caregivers for their families. Many detainees will lose their jobs as a result of their time in custody, he noted, pushing them deeper into social and economic disadvantage that extends far past their release.

“Deprivation of liberty changes a person’s life in permanent, fundamental ways. Any time the state chooses to exercise these extreme emergency powers, we have to ask what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse,” Seepersad said. He proposed mandatory judicial review as a critical check on preventive detention powers, noting that while the process can cause procedural delays, it sets a high legal bar that forces the state to justify detentions before a neutral third party. That standard protects innocent people from arbitrary deprivation of freedom, he argued.

Seepersad did offer a measured take on the proposed Special Operations Bill, noting that draft legislation includes core judicial safeguards, including independent oversight of security actions, and provisions for targeted social interventions that address the root causes of crime. He backed that approach, saying any long-term crime reduction strategy must invest in wrap-around support including psychologists, social workers, and educators, particularly for vulnerable young people at risk of gang involvement. He also confirmed that his independent analysis of crime data does show an overall drop in both serious and non-serious offending during the duration of the SoE, a rare point of agreement with the government’s public assessment.

With just hours remaining before a nationwide state of emergency (SoE) was set to expire, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar introduced a sweeping new anti-crime bill to parliament on Wednesday, locking in a permanent framework for targeted crackdowns on gangs, illegal firearms, and drug trafficking networks.

Unveiled as the Special Operations Bill (SOB) 2026, the new legislation draws core goals from the earlier Zones of Special Operations (ZOSO) Bill, but includes critical structural changes that ease its path to passage. Unlike the ZOSO Bill, which required a three-fifths supermajority vote to approve, the SOB can pass into law with the governing party’s simple majority, eliminating the need for cross-aisle support to advance the government’s crime-fighting agenda.

In a forceful address to lawmakers gathered at Port of Spain’s Red House, Persad-Bissessar emphasized that the end of the current state of emergency would not mark a retreat in the government’s war on violent organized crime. She warned criminal actors, their financial backers, and enabling associates that “there will be no sanctuary” for them as the transition to the new permanent framework takes effect. “The full lawful power of the State is coming for you,” she declared, drawing thunderous desk-thumping support from governing party legislators.

The core purpose of the SOB is to preserve the security gains made under the outgoing state of emergency without extending the broad temporary emergency powers. Under the legislation, designated policing districts will be established to enable sustained, targeted special operations, backed by the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force when necessary. The Commissioner of Police will appoint a special operations lead for each district, while the Chief of Defence Staff will assign a military liaison for any deployments.

In districts where violent gang activity, illicit weapons trafficking, and widespread drug trade create threats that exceed the capacity of standard policing, authorities will be authorized to temporarily cordon off areas, impose curfews, regulate entry and exit, and exercise enhanced search, seizure, arrest, and detention powers – all of which will remain subject to judicial oversight, the Prime Minister clarified. She stressed that these measures are tailored to target criminal networks, not penalize law-abiding residents: “When gangs impose illegal curfews, extort businesses, recruit children, and drive families from their homes, they attempt to replace the authority of the State with the authority of the criminal gun. This bill gives protective services the lawful power to break that control, restore public safety, and return these areas to the people who live there.”

To counter criticism of uneven application of justice that plagued previous administrations, Persad-Bissessar explicitly rejected what she called a “two-tiered justice system” that allowed well-connected criminals to avoid accountability under the former People’s National Movement (PNM) government. “Criminals operating from upscale Westmoorings, St Clair or Federation Park will be treated in the same manner as those operating from Laventille, Arima or Siparia, or from anywhere else,” she said. “Money will no longer buy immunity, status will not prevent investigation, and political connections will not provide protection.”

The Prime Minister also moved to address longstanding civil society concerns over excessive use of force and abuse of power by embedding strict human rights safeguards into the text of the bill. All officers deployed to special operations, including military personnel, are required to complete training in human rights, lawful use of force, community engagement, and conflict de-escalation. Within cordoned operation areas, all officers must use body-worn cameras, register all deployed weapons, and formally document all resident complaints. Detainees will be guaranteed access to medical care and visitation rights, and all enhanced law enforcement powers remain subject to ongoing judicial review. The bill also mandates formal joint cooperation protocols between police and defence forces, as well as independent standard operating procedures for each service.

To ensure parliamentary transparency, the legislation requires monthly operational reports to be submitted to the Prime Minister and the relevant cabinet ministers overseeing police and national security. An annual public report must also be tabled before the full parliament, creating a formal mechanism for legislative oversight of ongoing special operations. Persad-Bissessar noted that these accountability measures directly address criticisms raised against earlier anti-crime legislation, balancing robust operational power for security services with clear protections for civilian rights.

She also issued a direct challenge to the opposition PNM, saying the party can no longer hide behind procedural objections that derailed the earlier ZOSO Bill. The new legislation, she argued, centers the rights of law-abiding communities that have borne the brunt of gang violence: grieving parents who have lost children to violent crime, families terrorized in their own homes, small business owners facing daily extortion demands, and young people targeted for gang recruitment.

As the current state of expiration came to an end on Thursday, Persad-Bissessar closed her address by repeating her stark warning to criminal networks: the expiration of temporary emergency powers is not a signal of weakened resolve. “The State of Emergency may end, but there will be no sanctuary for you,” she said. “We will find you, dismantle your networks, seize your drugs, guns and criminal proceeds, and bring you before the courts. Your money, status and political connections will not save you. The full lawful power of the State is coming for you.”

Parliament is scheduled to open debate on the Special Operations Bill 2026 tomorrow.

A bitter public political clash has broken out in Trinidad and Tobago over the history of bilateral relations with neighboring Venezuela, as the current national administration works to mend ties fractured by months of rising tensions tied to United States military operations in the Caribbean. Former prime minister and energy minister Stuart Young, a senior figure from the previous People’s National Movement (PNM) government, has publicly pushed back against claims from current officeholders, asserting that Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Energy Minister Dr. Roodal Moonilal will not be permitted to “rewrite history” on the Caribbean nation’s diplomatic track record.

The controversy began earlier this week, when Moonilal spoke at a public event in La Brea and praised current Foreign and Caricom Affairs Minister Sean Sobers for his work repairing what he described as damage to Trinidad and Tobago-Venezuela relations inflicted by the former PNM administration. Moonilal’s comments came after months of escalating diplomatic friction between the two countries, sparked by a large-scale United States military buildup in Caribbean waters and a series of maritime strike operations that preceded the ouster of longtime Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in early January.

Young, who made 13 trips to Caracas during the PNM’s tenure in office and negotiated the high-profile Dragon and Manakin-Cocuina natural gas deals with Venezuelan acting president Delcy Rodriguez, took to Facebook on Wednesday to challenge Moonilal’s narrative. He pointed out that it was Persad-Bissessar and Moonilal who spent years attacking Rodriguez and even called for sanctions against him and former PNM prime minister Keith Rowley as the previous administration carefully managed ties with Trinidad and Tobago’s closest northern neighbor.

“Under the past PNM administration, the bilateral relationship between Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela was always strong, stable and respectful, with no declarations of any politician being labeled ‘Persona non Grata,’” Young wrote in his social media post. He added that despite his reluctance to publicly call out a sitting minister, he deemed it his public duty to correct the historical record and hold Moonilal accountable. “No one will be allowed to rewrite history, or pretend that the current prime minister and her government bear no responsibility for the deterioration of state-to-state relations between our two nations,” Young emphasized. In a sharp personal jab, he also suggested that Moonilal should undergo cognitive and mental health testing ahead of an expected cabinet reshuffle.

The roots of the current diplomatic rift stretch back to last September, when the United States launched its military buildup and maritime strike campaign targeting alleged drug trafficking networks operating in the region. From the start of the campaign, Persad-Bissessar has repeatedly voiced unwavering support for U.S. operations, even going so far as to suggest that all drug traffickers should be killed violently. She rejected longstanding regional calls for the Caribbean to remain a “Zone of Peace”, even as the U.S. carried out 69 lethal airstrikes and sea strikes against vessels it claims were linked to “narco-terrorist” groups transiting Caribbean and Eastern Pacific shipping lanes.

Earlier in the escalation of tensions, Persad-Bissessar also pledged unfiltered access to Trinidad and Tobago’s territory and infrastructure for U.S. forces in the event of a Venezuelan attack on neighboring Guyana, a move that drew sharp condemnation from the Maduro administration. In response, top Maduro regime loyalists including Rodriguez issued multiple public warnings and criticisms of the Persad-Bissessar government.

When two Trinidadian fishermen were reported killed by relatives during the fifth U.S. strike in October, Rodriguez labeled Persad-Bissessar’s pro-intervention statements a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” She also publicly pushed back against an outrageous claim from Trinidadian housing minister Phillip Edward Alexander, who claimed India would launch a nuclear strike on Venezuela to defend Trinidad and Tobago. “A nuclear bomb has already exploded in the brain of his government,” Rodriguez responded at the time. She added, “Trinidad and Tobago must think of its own people before it considers attacking Venezuela and renounce its vassalage to the U.S. government, which seeks to steal our vast energy resources. Our people are fully committed to defending our freedom and self-determination through our peaceful diplomacy, and they will never succeed in undermining our sovereignty.”

After Trinidad and Tobago hosted the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Gravely in Port of Spain last year, the Venezuelan National Assembly declared Persad-Bissessar persona non grata. Now, following Maduro’s ouster in January, the Persad-Bissessar government has launched new efforts to repair the fractured bilateral relationship, with Foreign Minister Sobers recently traveling to Caracas for talks with new Venezuelan interim government officials. It remains unclear whether the persona non grata designation for Persad-Bissessar is still in effect under the new administration. Just days ago, the Trinidadian prime minister publicly stated she holds “love” for Rodriguez and hopes to meet with her in the near future, though no meeting has yet been scheduled.

Tensions boiled over into open confrontation at a second special statutory gathering of the Siparia Borough Corporation on Wednesday, culminating in Mayor Doonath Mayrhoo ordering municipal police to escort People’s National Movement (PNM) alderman Christopher Encinas out of the council chamber.

The latest clash comes on the heels of a chaotic meeting one week prior that devolved into shouting matches and verbal insults, ending with a walkout by Encinas, former United National Congress alderman Victor Roberts and other PNM representatives. The PNM now holds a controlling majority on the borough council following three key developments: Roberts crossing the floor to join the party, Siparia West/Fyzabad councillor Jason Ali also switching allegiance, and the recent death of sitting councillor Romona Victor.

In post-meeting media interviews, both top figures traded accusations of improper power grabs, with each side blaming the other for attempting to take unauthorized control of the local government body’s operations.

Mayrhoo explained to reporters that Wednesday’s special meeting had been convened specifically to approve a budget virement needed to cover recently mandated salary increases for daily-rated workers set by the Ministry of Rural Development and Local Government, with additional financial and public governance items also added to the official agenda. According to the mayor, all required legislative items on the agenda were ultimately approved by the body.

The core point of contention centered on Encinas’ invocation of Standing Order 8(3), which holds that any decisions made without a valid quorum are legally null and void. While Mayrhoo acknowledged the general validity of this rule, he pushed back on Encinas’ application of it to last week’s meeting, confirming that a quorum was in place when chairmen for the four standing council committees were elected during that gathering.

Following the election of standing committee leaders, Mayrhoo noted he had exercised his mayoral authority to appoint chairmen for all of the corporation’s ad hoc committees, circulating the full list of appointments to every council member as part of this week’s public agenda. Under local governance rules, he emphasized, the mayor holds the exclusive power to fill leadership roles on committees that do not fall under the standing committee structure.

“The PNM secured all four standing committee chairmans through a democratic election aligned with the Standing Orders, and I fully respected that outcome, as those elections are guaranteed by regulation,” Mayrhoo stated. “I followed all legal requirements for that process, and the council elected four PNM members to those roles. I had no objections whatsoever, because they were well within their rights. The problem only arose when I exercised my own clear legal authority to appoint chairmen to non-standing ad hoc committees, which the rules grant directly to this office.”

Addressing the decision to remove Encinas from the chamber, Mayrhoo clarified that the alderman had already been given time to speak, but repeatedly attempted to interrupt proceedings and challenge the chair’s authority while another councillor waited to speak. “Encinas was being openly disrespectful to the chair, and his allotted speaking time had already expired,” the mayor explained. “I did not suspend him permanently. I simply asked him to step outside for five minutes to cool off, and requested municipal police to escort him out to maintain order.”

Mayrhoo further alleged that the PNM caucus is intentionally working to engineer quorum failures and derail the corporation’s core public services to consolidate power. “This administration will not allow the PNM to hijack this local government body,” he said. “If we need to resolve this through the courts, or if the PNM chooses to take legal action, we are fully prepared to defend our position.”

For his part, Encinas pushed back with a starkly different account of the conflict. He argued that the entire previous statutory meeting was legally invalidated when PNM members walked out, which he claims left the body without a quorum, meaning all decisions taken at that gathering – including the standing committee elections – are null and void.

“We expected the mayor to call an entirely new meeting to address all committee leadership appointments, as required by the rules,” Encinas said. “Our reading of the standing orders is clear: if a meeting ends without a quorum, the entire meeting and all decisions made during it are invalid. The mayor simply refused to acknowledge that basic rule.”

Encinas claimed that instead of opening the committee leadership process up for debate, Mayrhoo tabled a pre-arranged list of ad hoc committee chairmen and refused to allow any council member to raise questions, challenge the selections or debate the appointments. “When we attempted to raise our concerns, invoke Standing Order 8(3) and open a debate on the legality of the appointments, the mayor refused to allow any discussion at all,” Encinas said. “He simply unilaterally declared the appointments valid, but in our view, none of these committees are legal because the entire foundational meeting that led to them was invalid. The only correct step was to hold a new special statutory meeting to reconsider all committee appointments, including the standing committees.”

Encinas confirmed that when he attempted to formally raise his objection, the mayor ordered him removed from the chamber. “The mayor had police escort me out. I complied peacefully, because I recognize that the mayor holds the procedural authority to maintain order in the chamber, so I followed his direction,” he said. Encinas also categorically rejected Mayrhoo’s claim that the PNM caucus is intentionally avoiding meetings or trying to obstruct the corporation’s work.