标签： Trinidad and Tobago

A high-stakes political clash has erupted in Trinidad and Tobago after Opposition Member of Parliament for Port of Spain South Keith Scotland, SC, issued a bold public challenge to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, demanding she repeat damaging allegations about his professional conduct in a high-profile legal case outside the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Speaking to journalists outside Parliament this week, flanked by fellow Opposition lawmakers, Scotland pushed back forcefully against claims the Prime Minister leveled during a House of Representatives debate on the Standing Finance Committee’s adoption report. The allegations center on Scotland’s legal work handling a debt claim brought by the state-owned Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) against local company Flavorite Foods Ltd. Scotland has labeled the Prime Minister’s remarks “very egregious attacks” on his professional reputation and firmly denied any misconduct in the case.

After reviewing the Prime Minister’s claims in the hours following the parliamentary debate, Scotland systematically refuted each allegation, laying out clear documentary evidence to back his denial of wrongdoing. The case hinges on whether proper legal procedures were followed for T&TEC’s claim against Flavorite Foods, and Scotland outlined three core points to support his position.

First, he confirmed there is no official documentation that bears his signature confirming any required court filing was never submitted to the court. Second, he rejected the claim that the case was invalid due to exceeding the statutory limitation period, noting that the claim was officially refiled with the court in 2024, and the court has already stamped a request for entry of default judgment after Flavorite Foods failed to enter a formal response to the claim. Scotland also pointed out that Trinidad and Tobago’s courts suspended all statutory limitation periods for two years during the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical legal detail he says the Prime Minister overlooked in her allegations.

Scotland explained that after his legal team completed the initial refiling and default judgment application, the client took over the case files, meaning any subsequent developments are not the responsibility of his team. He also noted that he suspended his active legal practice during a previous term serving in the country’s Cabinet, further clarifying the timeline of his involvement.

The Opposition MP stressed that he holds full documentary proof to corroborate every part of his account, including court records confirming the refiled claim, the submitted default judgment application, and an official query from the court registrar addressing outstanding procedural points in the judgment filing — information that has not previously been made public. Scotland accused the ruling government of orchestrating the attacks to damage his reputation in retaliation for his ongoing public criticism of injustice facing Trinbagonian citizens and parliamentary staff, vowing that the efforts to silence him would not succeed.

“They will not silence my voice with attacks on my character, attacks on me and, by extension, my family,” Scotland said, adding that he would continue to speak out against unfair treatment of the public. “I want to set the record straight. What we will not do is that I will not be silenced. I will stand against injustice meted out against any parliamentary staff, meted out against people of Trinidad and Tobago.”

Responding to questions about whether all required procedural steps were completed before he ended his active involvement in the case, Scotland confirmed that to his knowledge, all initial issues with the claim were resolved, the claim was refiled within the legally allowed timeframe, and the default judgment application was properly submitted. He also noted that he plans to reach out directly to T&TEC leadership to clarify the full details of the case and resolve any lingering confusion.

In a fiery address to Trinidad and Tobago’s Parliament during a vote to approve the Standing Finance Committee’s report, Attorney General John Jeremie launched a scathing attack on the prior People’s National Movement (PNM) administration, accusing it of wasting $1 million in public funds on a premature, extravagant opening ceremony for the Port of Spain General Hospital’s new Central Block back in March 2025.

Jeremie detailed that the event, which drew three-quarters of the former PNM cabinet, centered on unnecessary luxury spending that included cheese paste and champagne, even as the facility remained wholly unequipped to deliver even the most basic patient care. At the time of the high-profile opening, he explained, the Central Block only held a certificate of practical project completion—a designation that meant full operational readiness was still far from achieved. More than 10,000 pieces of medical equipment had yet to be installed, plumbing infrastructure remained unfinished, rendering all restrooms unusable, and the building held no beds, no stock of medications, not even common over-the-counter pain relievers like Panadol for event attendees who might have fallen ill. Construction on the structure would drag on for months after the ceremony concluded, Jeremie added.

Beyond the hospital spending controversy, the Attorney General pinned the blame for recent international credit and economic downgrades for Trinidad and Tobago squarely on the PNM’s previous term in office. He defended the current United National Congress (UNC) administration’s economic management, arguing that the former finance minister Colm Imbert and his colleagues were responsible for the country’s ongoing economic challenges. Jeremie also pushed back against opposition criticism of the current government’s new fiscal measures, clarifying that recent increased penalties across multiple sectors are not new taxes, but enforcement penalties for violations of the law. He accused the PNM opposition of deliberately spreading misinformation to stoke public fear and anger toward the ruling administration.

Jeremie also used the parliamentary address to reinforce the current government’s commitment to equal application of the law, stating that no person—regardless of their social status, political connections, or ties to powerful institutions like banks or former prime ministers—is above the law. He contrasted this with what he claimed was the PNM’s long-standing culture of applying different rules to people based on their connections, adding that the opposition’s default response to policy disagreement is to incite unrest rather than engage in constructive debate.

The Attorney General claimed that recent attempts at unrest have included collaborations between opposition-aligned elements and two notorious local gangs, known as Sixx and Seven, to stir up public disorder. He closed by reiterating his accusation that opposition lawmakers have spread ignorance and stoked dangerous social tension in recent debates, with one unnamed opposition representative engaging in particularly “loathsome and repugnant” rhetoric to drive division.

A contentious confrontation between the ruling United National Congress (UNC) and opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) has erupted in Trinidad and Tobago following a heated Standing Finance Committee meeting last Friday, centered on a photograph taken by Government Business Leader Barry Padarath of a parliamentary audio technician. The incident has escalated into a broader political firestorm, with accusations of intimidation, institutional overreach, and even seditious racial rhetoric flying between the two major parties.

Speaking to reporters outside the Port of Spain Parliament building on Abercromby Street one day after the clash, Padarath, who also serves as the Member of Parliament for Couva South, pushed back hard against claims that his decision to photograph the technician was intended to intimidate parliamentary staff. He explained that the snapshot was taken solely for identification purposes, rooted in a simmering dispute over alleged improper muting of government lawmakers’ microphones during proceedings.

During the Friday committee session, UNC government representatives raised formal complaints that their microphones had been cut off unexpectedly while they were attempting to speak. Padarath subsequently approached the technical staff member responsible for managing the chamber’s audio system and captured the photograph. The interaction immediately devolved into shouting matches between government and opposition lawmakers across the floor of the House of Representatives, turning a routine committee meeting into a high-stakes partisan standoff.

Padarath defended his choice to photograph the staff member, noting that identification is a required step for any formal complaint brought before Parliament’s Broadcasting Committee. “It is the only way that we can identify them, because we don’t know the staff of the Parliament,” he told reporters. He stressed that the act was never meant to function as an intimidation tactic: “It was meant just to identify where the possible challenges are, so when we go to the Broadcasting Committee, we can say, ‘Well, these are the technicians. These are the persons who were muting the mics at that point in time.’”

Pressed on the combative tone his party has taken in Parliament amid the ongoing dispute, Padarath rejected any suggestion that the UNC’s approach was inappropriate. “Politics is not a tea party; the war is on and the UNC will not roll over and play dead,” he stated. He added that the ruling party has endured unfair treatment and biased procedural practices for far too long, and that the incident was simply meant to draw public attention to ongoing problems inside and outside the legislature.

The Couva South MP also dismissed opposition demands for a criminal investigation into his conduct, arguing that PNM lawmakers were only using the incident as a distraction from inflammatory comments made by one of their own colleagues. He fired back by calling for a criminal probe into PNM MP Kareem Marcelle, questioning whether Marcelle’s recent remarks amounted to sedition.

The comments in question date back to a PNM public rally held Thursday night at the Laventille Community Centre, where Marcelle accused the UNC-led government of using the “PNM” label as a racial slur targeting Afro-Trinidadians. Marcelle declared at the rally: “They don’t like we, and they will never like we. But I want them to know that we don’t like them and we will never like them.” He went further, claiming that “Whenever they say ‘PNM people’ on social media, to me, it is the new N-word. They hate African people. They hate black people…A bunch of racist clowns in this country.”

Over the weekend, Padarath doubled down on his position, saying he was “ready for war” and accusing the PNM of deflecting attention from what he labeled Marcelle’s “racist and seditious” comments.

PNM MP Stuart Young, representing Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West, pushed back against Padarath’s framing during his own press briefing outside Parliament Monday. Young questioned the meaning of Padarath’s repeated “war” rhetoric, asking: “Is it a war against public servants? Is it a war against independent parliamentary staff? That is the question that needs to be asked.”

Young said he was speaking on behalf of all “civic-minded and right-thinking citizens of Trinidad and Tobago” to condemn any and all attacks on non-partisan parliamentary staff and public servants. He noted that all elected parliamentarians have a duty to uphold the standards of public office, even within the inherently adversarial structure of the Westminster parliamentary system.

While Young acknowledged that robust partisan clash is a normal part of legislative debate, he argued that Friday’s incident crossed a fundamental line. “What we saw on Friday is not in that category. Parliamentarians on either side of the aisle thrusting against each other is expected,” he said. “That was a line crossed.”

Addressing the core complaint of improper mic muting, Young clarified that the audio system operates according to long-standing, standard parliamentary procedure. “Once a person has the floor, that is the person whose mic is going to be on. The Speaker will stand up, the Speaker’s mic will be on and everybody’s mic is off; so it is whoever has the floor and command of the floor and it is their turn to speak,” he explained. “Everybody’s mic can’t be turned on at the same time, so there’s absolutely nothing abnormal with that.”

Young concluded by accusing the current ruling UNC of exploiting procedural questions to force their uninvited comments onto the official parliamentary record, a practice he said runs counter to established legislative norms.

A landmark constitutional ruling handed down by the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago on Friday has confirmed that the state unlawfully violated the fundamental constitutional rights of a 76-year-old citizen, who was stranded abroad by Covid-19 border closures and denied an opportunity to exchange $10,000 in old cotton-paper $100 banknotes for the new polymer currency after a 2019 demonetization program.

The claim was originally brought by Shantee Nanan, who passed away in November 2024 while the case was still pending. Following her death, the court appointed her son Edison Nanan to step in and represent her estate through the conclusion of proceedings. Justice Devindra Rampersad, who delivered the final judgment, found that the former People’s National Movement (PNM) administration’s administration of the late currency redemption regime outlined in the Central Bank Act fell short of constitutional requirements, breaching Nanan’s rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

The root of the dispute stretches back to the 2019 demonetization of the old $100 cotton banknotes. Nanan did not challenge the legality of the demonetization program itself or the enabling legislation that put it into place. Instead, her grievance centered on the state’s refusal to fairly apply the statutory relief mechanism created to assist citizens who could not meet the redemption deadline for legitimate, unforeseen reasons.

In 2019, Nanan traveled abroad to care for her husband, who was suffering from a serious illness, before she herself became unwell shortly after her arrival. When the government of Trinidad and Tobago abruptly closed its national borders in March 2020 to slow the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, Nanan was barred from reentering the country until January 2021—months after the statutory deadline for exchanging old banknotes had passed. Upon her return home, she found $10,000 in demonetized notes stored among her personal belongings, which the state refused to exchange when she applied for an extension.

Court proceedings revealed critical context about how the redemption relief power was being administered by the Ministry of Finance. Between 2019 and January 2024, 94 separate applications for extensions of time to redeem old notes were submitted under Section 27A(5) of the Central Bank Act—and not a single one was approved. Justice Rampersad found that this consistent track record proved the existence of a settled, unwritten policy of blanket refusal, even though Parliament had explicitly granted the executive discretion to approve relief for qualifying, deserving cases.

The state mounted a robust defense of its policy, arguing that the claim was legally flawed from its inception. State attorneys contended that because Nanan had accepted the constitutionality of the demonetization program itself and did not bring a challenge to the proportionality of the legislation, there was no unlawful policy open to judicial review. They further argued that the case involved only the application of enacted law, not an independent unlawful policy that could be overturned by the courts.

Citing evidence from former minister Stuart Young, the state also emphasized that the demonetization initiative was implemented to disrupt illegal cash transactions and combat organized crime, noting that roughly $500 million in old banknotes remained unredeemed and unaccounted for. Allowing any portion of this currency back into circulation, the defense argued, would fundamentally undermine the core national security and anti-crime objectives of the program, and asking the court to order redemption would improperly force the judiciary to overstep into executive policy-making.

Justice Rampersad rejected all of the state’s arguments outright, dismissing them as a “procedural dead end.” In his ruling, he emphasized that a statutory power created specifically to relieve hardship cannot lawfully be exercised as a blanket, unchanging refusal behind secret, unpublicized criteria that are never disclosed to the public.

“A statutory power to relieve deserving cases, operated as a settled and invariable refusal behind criteria that were never formulated, much less published, is not the exercise of a discretion at all,” the judge wrote in his judgment. “It is precisely the species of arbitrariness which takes a complaint out of the ordinary run of administrative law and into the realm of the Constitution.”

The justice found that by operating the relief scheme in what he termed a “procedural vacuum,” the executive unlawfully restricted the discretion that Parliament had intentionally created to protect citizens from harsh or unforeseen consequences of new legislation. This arbitrary action, the court ruled, directly violated Nanan’s constitutional rights to property ownership and protection under the law.

“It is one thing for the State to decline to relieve a person who simply allowed the period to elapse,” Justice Rampersad explained. “It is another thing entirely to deprive a person who had good reason of any means of having that reason considered, by operating the relieving discretion as a blanket refusal behind criteria that were never formulated much less published or disclosed.”

While the judge acknowledged that the state has a legitimate, critical interest in combating financial crime and protecting national security, he held that these goals cannot serve as a blanket justification for abandoning core principles of procedural fairness.

As a remedy for the constitutional violation, the High Court ordered the state to pay Nanan’s estate $10,000 in compensatory damages equal to the face value of the unredeemed notes, plus 2.5% annual interest running from March 18, 2022—the date the original claim was filed—through the date of the final judgment. The court also awarded an additional $30,000 in vindicatory damages, a penalty designed to acknowledge the severity of the constitutional breach and deter the executive from continuing to use secret, arbitrary policy practices in the future. The state was further ordered to cover all of the claimant’s legal costs, which will be assessed by the Registrar of the High Court if the two parties cannot reach a mutual agreement on the amount.