标签： Trinidad and Tobago

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.

The United States has deepened its security alliance with Trinidad and Tobago after formally launching a new joint task force designed to synchronize cross-border military operations targeting transnational criminal networks across the Western Hemisphere. In an official statement released Monday by the U.S. Embassy in Port of Spain, the activation of Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere (JTF-WHEM) under U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), paired with Trinidad and Tobago’s ongoing membership in the 18-nation Americas Counter Cartel Coalition (A3C), demonstrates a mutual dedication to bolstering regional stability and dismantling drug-linked terrorist networks.

A decades-long battle against out-of-control violent crime in Trinidad and Tobago is entering a new phase of action, as the national government breaks ground on 30 permanent joint army-police security posts across the country, a major crime-fighting intervention that has already earned broad public and local business support. On a inspection tour of construction sites on Wednesday, Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander emphasized that protecting public lives is the government’s top priority, stating that no financial cost is too great to reduce preventable deaths and spare families from unnecessary grief.

Amid rising public scrutiny and criticism from self-described security experts, Trinidad and Tobago Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro has publicly defended the nation’s new initiative to establish 30 joint army-police mobile posts across the country, framing the project as a transformative upgrade to the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service’s (TTPS) public safety capabilities. In the Commissioner’s first formal address on the program, he pushed back hard against detractors, noting that the criticism of the basic operational concept behind the posts is puzzling coming from individuals who claim expertise in security matters.

In an official statement released by the TTPS Wednesday, the agency laid out the core purpose of the under-construction posts: to expand operational capacity for frontline officers without permanently locking personnel to fixed geographic locations. Guevarro emphasized that the TTPS remains unwavering in its core mandate to protect public safety, and dismissed critical commentary as an unhelpful distraction from the agency’s work. He repeatedly reaffirmed that the primary goals of the joint posts are to extend the service’s operational reach, cut response times to emergency and criminal incidents, and boost overall law enforcement effectiveness across the islands.

To address public concerns over oversight and legal compliance, Guevarro offered a formal assurance that the entire initiative is being carried out strictly within the TTPS’s statutory authorities, with transparency and accountability built into every stage of planning and deployment. He explained that all decisions tied to the program are rooted in empirical crime data, aligned with the service’s legal obligations, and guided by a commitment to open governance for the Trinidad and Tobago public. Framing the mobile micro-units as a key milestone in police service modernization, he noted the initiative directly equips the agency to adapt to rapidly evolving national security challenges.

The TTPS’s release clarified that deployment of the 30 posts is a core component of the agency’s ongoing anti-crime strategy, with site selection and rollout guided entirely by data-driven crime analysis and operational needs, rather than arbitrary geographic or political considerations. Contrary to claims that the posts are an untested new concept, the service highlighted that mobile policing units have been a standard part of TTPS operations for decades, and the new joint posts represent a deliberate upgrade to existing infrastructure that aligns with the national government’s strategic law enforcement priorities.

Unlike older generations of mobile units, the new micro-police posts require only minimal foundational construction, meaning they can be repositioned across the country quickly to adapt to shifting crime patterns. Each new unit also offers expanded space to accommodate additional officers and integrates more advanced communications and surveillance technology than older models. Site selection for the posts is being led by the TTPS’s Crime and Problem Analysis Branch, with locations picked to match current local crime trends rather than permanent fixed boundaries.

Beyond routine patrol support, the joint posts will serve multiple critical public safety functions: they will act as hubs for community engagement with local residents, enable faster coordinated responses to neighborhood issues, support planning and coordination for major public events, and function as forward operating bases for specialized law enforcement operations. During natural disasters or other large-scale emergencies, the posts can also serve as on-the-ground command and control centers to coordinate emergency response efforts, and provide dedicated support for tactical deployments and targeted crime suppression initiatives.

A formal complaint backed by opposition political figures has landed at the doorstep of Trinidad and Tobago’s Office of the Procurement Regulator, calling for an immediate investigation into the public procurement process for a major national security infrastructure project: the construction of 30 new joint army-police outposts across the country.

Dated August 7, 2026, the complaint was submitted by attorney Randall Mitchell, a former government minister from the opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), on behalf of public activist Wendell Eversley. Senior Counsel Stuart Young, who also serves as an opposition Member of Parliament and former prime minister, provided formal instruction for the case. To support their claims, complainants attached a copy of a August 7 front-page news report from the *Express* titled “Row erupts over police post”, which first publicized growing controversy around the initiative.

The project in question was first announced by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar on August 3 this year, as a core expansion of the government’s national security strategy. According to local media reports, construction work on the outposts has already begun or is set to start imminently — yet nearly all key details of the procurement process have remained hidden from public view, the complaint argues.

In the letter addressed directly to Procurement Regulator Beverly Khan, the legal team formally filed the complaint under Section 41 of the 2015 Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act, the country’s core legislation governing public spending on contracts. Mitchell emphasized that Eversley filed the challenge as a concerned citizen, focused on the lack of transparency around how public funds are being committed to the project.

“Under existing law, the Office of the Procurement Regulator is explicitly empowered to investigate any public complaint alleging suspected irregularities or breaches of procurement regulations,” Mitchell noted in the correspondence.

The complaint outlines six distinct grounds justifying a full investigation, centering on the complete absence of critical public information about the process. To date, the government has not publicly named which public body is leading the procurement, identified the source of funding for the project, disclosed what procurement method was used, released any records of tender advertisements or competitive bidding processes, named the selected contractors, or revealed the total value of the program or the cost of each individual outpost.

Even if the government used a limited, non-competitive bidding process justified by urgency, emergency, or national security needs, the complaint argues that no public explanation or formal approval for this exception has been released. The legal team also raised unanswered questions about the identity and beneficial ownership of selected contractors and subcontractors, the due diligence and evaluation processes used to select firms, and lingering questions about potential conflicts of interest related to a specific private company linked to the work.

Additional unaddressed concerns include whether the 30-outpost project was tendered as a single contract or split into multiple awards, and whether any intentional division was used to avoid competitive procurement rules. All of these gaps add up to reasonable suspicion that the process may not have complied with legal requirements for transparency, accountability, integrity, fairness, and value for public money, the letter argues.

The legal team has called on the regulator to obtain and review the full, complete procurement record for the project, to verify all key details from responsible entities to contract values, and confirm whether the award of contracts and start of construction complied with the 2015 Act and accompanying regulations.

Given that construction is already underway or set to begin shortly, Mitchell has urged the regulator to prioritize the complaint as an urgent matter, and to take all available regulatory action to ensure compliance with the law while the full investigation is completed. The letter also requests formal written acknowledgement of the complaint, a official reference number, and confirmation of what next steps the regulator plans to take.

A deep political rift over Trinidad and Tobago’s employment landscape has erupted, as Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles has publicly called into question Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s bold assertion that the current administration has added 15,000 new jobs to the national economy over a 12-month period.

Speaking at the Opposition’s weekly press briefing in Port of Spain on the previous day, Beckles anchored her challenge in official data released by the country’s Central Statistical Office (CSO). The official figures, she confirmed, show that total employment across the nation dropped by 5,900 positions between the final quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026. Over the same window, the national unemployment rate climbed from 4.3% to 5.4%, with female workers bearing a disproportionate share of the employment decline.

Beckles rejected the government’s attempt to frame the contraction as a routine seasonal shift tied to post-Christmas holiday hiring patterns, noting that job cuts rippled across nearly every major sector of the national economy. CSO data, she said, recorded employment declines between January and March 2026 in petroleum and gas, mining and quarrying, manufacturing, utilities, construction, transportation and logistics, communications, community services, and agriculture. This broad-based drop directly contradicts the Prime Minister’s claim of 15,000 net jobs created between April 2025 and April 2026, she argued.

She also brought attention to Persad-Bissessar’s own admission that two major government work programs, CEPEP and URP, have been severely undermined by systemic inefficiency and widespread corruption. In a direct challenge to the Prime Minister, Beckles asked: “I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Prime Minister stands by the figures that they have produced, 15,000 jobs delivered?”

Beyond the immediate 15,000 job claim, Beckles raised new doubts about the government’s core election pledge to create 50,000 new jobs during its term, noting that the latest official figures make meeting that target increasingly unlikely. She added that opposition constituency offices across the country continue to be flooded with requests from unemployed constituents seeking work, saying: “They can tell you the category when persons come to their offices. What are people coming for? Books and uniforms, jobs, jobs, jobs. But this Government will have you believe that they have created so much jobs.”

Beckles also pushed back against claims attributed to Persad-Bissessar that recent job losses stemmed from the elimination of so-called “ghost programmes” — state-funded schemes riddled with criminal activity and corruption. She argued that these remarks unfairly stigmatize thousands of innocent workers who have lost their livelihoods, calling on female workers, who have seen the steepest employment drops, to take note of the prime minister’s characterization. While Beckles acknowledged that a small share of working-age citizens may be unwilling to take up employment, she condemned the government for painting all recently laid-off workers with a broad brush of corruption and idleness: “But you want to tell the people of Trinidad and Tobago, having fired almost 50,000 people, that you want to tell everybody, all of them involved in drugs, everything was freeness, everything was corruption, and everything was ghosts.”

In addition to the broader national employment debate, Beckles criticized the government’s inaction on the looming crisis at Hilton Trinidad, where an unresolved lease dispute threatens to put up to 300 workers out of a job. The union representing hotel staff has confirmed that more than 250 people are currently employed at the property, and workers have been warned that the hotel could close within weeks if the lease is not renewed. Beckles demanded immediate clarity from both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade on the status of the lease negotiations to protect the affected workers’ livelihoods.

A proposed national policy that would require all people aged 16 and older — including both local citizens and foreign visitors — to carry valid official identification in all public spaces has sparked a range of responses across Trinidad and Tobago, with stakeholders in the country’s iconic steelpan community largely backing the plan while some members of the public have raised privacy and ideological concerns.

The policy announcement came last Wednesday from Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander, who confirmed the administration would move forward with drafting and enacting new legislation to formalize the mandatory ID requirement. The proposal has since opened up dialogue across different sectors of society, with steelpan organizers, one of the nation’s most culturally significant community groups, highlighting unexpected practical benefits the rule could deliver for young pannists participating in the country’s world-famous Panorama steelband competition.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday on the sidelines of the launch of two new steelpan-themed tracks — *Unshakeable Queen of Pan* and *Pannists’ Achievements* — held at Port of Spain’s Queen’s Park Savannah, Clyde Telemaque, external relations officer for Pan Trinbago, the governing body for steelpan in Trinidad and Tobago, explained that formal ID would streamline payment processes for minor participants aged 10 to 14 who take part in Panorama events. Telemaque noted that currently, many young pannists lack official identification, which in turn prevents them from opening personal bank accounts. This forces organizers to issue competition payments to parents or guardians, creating confusion and unfair barriers for the young musicians who earned the funds. By requiring ID for all people 16 and up, Telemaque argued, the new policy will build a formal pathway for younger participants to get their own ID and bank accounts, simplifying the entire remuneration process both during and after Panorama events.

Terry Bernard, vice president of Pan Trinbago, also expressed his full support for the policy, saying he backed any measure that he believes will advance national progress. Rejecting reflexive opposition for political purposes, Bernard said the public should extend trust to the elected government to craft policies that serve the public good, adding that he also supports expanded police checkpoints tied to the policy. Beyond the ID rule itself, Bernard tied the policy to Pan Trinbago’s broader mission of drawing more young people into steelbands, framing steelpan communities as sacred local spaces that teach critical values including etiquette, teamwork, and national patriotism while opening life-changing opportunities for children and youth.

Other prominent cultural figures echoed this measured support. Renowned poet Eintou Pearl Springer noted she already carries her ID at all times and has no objection to the mandate, acknowledging that all policies carry both potential benefits and drawbacks but arguing that ordinary citizens should not face undue punishment for minor compliance issues. Roger Thomas, manager of the Curepe-based Moods Steel Orchestra, framed the policy as a progressive step to align Trinidad and Tobago’s public safety framework with international norms, pointing out that similar mandatory ID rules are already in place in the United Kingdom.

Some private citizens also voiced support, with one parent noting that obtaining official ID is a widely accepted rite of passage into adulthood, and that they had already secured an ID for their child independent of the government’s proposed mandate. But not all reactions have been positive. Jason, a Port of Spain taxi driver, argued that the rule is a sweeping surveillance measure that allows authorities to track the movements of all residents. He specifically referenced the recent police manhunt and fatal shooting of escaped prisoner Robby Khadoo in San Fernando as an example of the tracking capabilities the government already holds, and claimed the policy would help authorities restrict the movement of Venezuelan migrants in the country, adding that he believes informants already help police monitor civilian activity. One female member of the public also launched an angry, profanity-laced critique of the policy, directing her anger at opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar over the proposal.