By Peter Richards
CASTRIES, St. Lucia, Jul 6, CMC – Trinidad and Tobago says that its objection to the reappointment of Dr. Carla Barnett as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretary General “is neither personal nor political”.
In a 22-page letter written to the regional leaders, Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar also notes that Port of Spain’s position “is not directed towards any individual,” but rather “ it concerns the legality of the process adopted, the integrity of our institutions and the faithful observance of the constitutional framework established by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas”.
She said that her administration “does not accept the process by which the Secretary-General was purportedly reappointed, and consequently, is unable to recognise the validity of the purported second term of the Secretary-General.
“I wish to be very clear: our position is not held to create division within the Community, but to preserve the constitutional order upon which the legitimacy and credibility of CARICOM ultimately depend.
“Regional unity cannot rest upon expediency and irregular practices masquerading as precedent. It must rest upon adherence to the rules which every Member State has freely accepted and undertaken to uphold,” Persad-Bissessar wrote in her letter to the regional leaders, a copy of which has been obtained by the Caribbean Media Corporation(CMC).
Persad-Bissessar also wants the regional leaders to seek an opinion from the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on the issue and also wants Barnett to be engaged on a “month-to-month basis” until there is a determination by the CCJ.
“Such an interim extension should be expressly stated to be without prejudice to the legal rights or positions of any Member State, and should not be construed as affirming the validity of the impugned reappointment process.
“Pending the determination of the advisory proceedings: (a) the incumbent Secretary-General shall fully recuse herself from the exercise of any authority whatsoever or take any decision directly or indirectly, regarding the said advisory proceedings.
Responsibility for such action shall be vested entirely in the Deputy Secretary General or some other independent person/body;
“The General Counsel shall recuse herself from the matter of the advisory opinion in light of her primary role as an advisor to the Secretary-General, who is subject to the proposed advisory opinion.”
In addition, Persad-Bissessar says the proposed questions of interpretation arising under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas should be urgently referred to the CCJ for an expedited advisory opinion pursuant to Article 212 of the Revised Treaty.
“Given the constitutional significance of the issues and their implications for the governance of the Community, the Court should be requested to hear and determine the reference on an urgent basis,” she wrote.
The contents of the letter form a major talking point for the leaders who have gone into retreat on the first working days of their four-day summit that is being chaired by St. Lucia’s Prime Minister Phillip J Pierre.
Barnett, the first woman to have been appointed as CARICOM Secretary General on August, 15, 2021, and her reappointment was reappointed during the leaders’ summit in St. Kitts and Nevis in February this year.
Persad-Bissessar arrived at the opening ceremony of the 51st CARICOM summit on Sunday night after Barnett had delivered her remarks and the St.Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Dr. Terrance Drew, who spoke afterwards, praised Barnett for her stewardship of the Guyana-based CARICOM Secretariat and the integration movement as a whole.
“You have understood the importance of preserving the impartiality of the Secretariat while faithfully implementing the decisions of heads of government,” Drew said, adding, “That balance has strengthened this community, and for this, I offer, on behalf of all of us, our sincerest gratitude”.
In her July 3, 2026, letter, Persad Bissessar stated that her administration has “set out our proposals for a final and conclusive determination of the issues arising therefrom by the Caribbean Court of Justice by way of an advisory opinion, as well as proposals for interim measures”.
She notes that Article 24 of the Revised Treaty “expressly gives the power to appoint and reappoint the Secretary General to the Conference, not by a Retreat, caucus or informal gathering of Heads of Government.
“While a Retreat may lawfully facilitate confidential discussion, it cannot replace the constitutional institution designated by the Revised Treaty to exercise the power of appointment.”
She also wrote that “the Rules of Procedure regulate the manner in which the Conference conducts its deliberations, but do not alter the institutional authority established by the Revised Treaty.
“Accordingly, where the decision itself was taken at the Heads-only Retreat rather than by the Conference acting in accordance with Articles 11 and 24 of the Revised Treaty, the reappointment was made by a body lacking the constitutional competence to exercise that power and was therefore inconsistent with the Revised Treaty”.
Persad-Bissessar also argues “that the Heads’ Retreat was not a meeting that legally constituted a Conference and/or indeed a caucus, for the purposes of exercising the Article 24(1) of the Revised Treaty power to reappoint the Secretary-General of CARICOM”.
She said “it is clear that the Retreat of Heads was seen as something separate and apart from the plenary session of the Conference or a Caucus under Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Conference of Heads of Government of the CARICOM.
“The powers conferred by a constitutive treaty upon an institutional organ must ordinarily be exercised in the manner prescribed by the treaty. CARICOM organs possess only those powers conferred by the Revised Treaty and must exercise them consistently with their institutional framework.
“Where a treaty creates an organ and specifies how that organ is composed and how it acts, compliance with those requirements is ordinarily a condition of validity rather than administrative convenience. Substance prevails over nomenclature. A body cannot avoid treaty obligations merely by changing labels. Equally, a gathering cannot acquire treaty powers merely because participants overlap with those who ordinarily constitute the treaty organ.”
Persad-Bissessar argued that, significantly, the Communique issued following the meeting “contained no reference whatsoever to the reappointment of the Secretary-General under that agenda item.”
She said the Communique issued on March 1, 2026 noted that the leaders had agreed to establish a special committee, the leaders of Barbados, Dominica, Guyana and Jamaica “to review the governance and financing of Community institutions.
“That omission deprived Member States of the opportunity to prepare for deliberation upon a matter affecting one of the highest constitutional offices within the Community. Any suggestion that past practice dispenses with the need to identify such an important constitutional question expressly on the Agenda cannot be reconciled with the principles of openness, legality and informed participation which underpin the Revised Treaty.
“Further, wrong past practice cannot be used to validate present wrong practice–’two wrongs do not make a right.”
The letter notes that Article 24 of the Revised Treaty establishes a mandatory constitutional sequence whereby the Community Council first makes a recommendation before the Conference may appoint or reappoint a Secretary-General.
“No recommendation was sought or obtained from the Community Council before the purported reappointment. This requirement is neither procedural nor optional. It forms an essential constitutional safeguard intended to ensure that the Conference exercises its appointing authority only after receiving the institutional advice contemplated by the Revised Treaty.
“A reappointment is not a separate constitutional process; it forms part of the same appointment mechanism established by Article 24 of the Revised Treaty, and is therefore subject to the same mandatory requirements. By bypassing the Community Council, the constitutional balance established by the Revised Treaty was displaced, and the Conference purported to exercise a power that had not yet been lawfully engaged.”
She also said that Article 11(2) of the Revised Treaty confers upon every Head of Government an unqualified right to designate a Minister or other representative to attend any Meeting of the Conference.
In the letter, which chronicles the various omissions and irregularities regarding the re-appointment of Barnett, Persad-Bissessar wrote that “the constitutional significance of appointing the Secretary-General, who is the chief administrative officer of the Community, requires scrupulous adherence to the Revised Treaty and the Rules of Procedure.
“In those circumstances, it was the responsibility of the Office of the General Counsel to ensure that the constitutional requirements governing representation, agenda, voting, participation, confirmation of decisions and the role of the Community Council were fully observed.
“Had appropriate legal guidance been provided at the relevant stages, many of the procedural irregularities now giving rise to controversy could have been avoided altogether. The apparent absence of such guidance contributed materially to the procedural deficiencies identified above and has unnecessarily placed the legality of the purported reappointment in issue.”
She said the issues surrounding the “purported reappointment of the Secretary-General have caused much discomfort and dissonance in CARICOM.
“Consequently, The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, believing in the values of the CARICOM, and wishing to strengthen, rather than weaken its institutions, proposes that this matter be resolved through the legal mechanism established by the Revised Treaty itself, by way of a reference to the CCJ for an advisory opinion, in circumstances where there is a genuine dispute concerning the legality of the purported reappointment of the Secretary-General.”
She said that an advisory opinion from the CCJ “would provide an authoritative and impartial interpretation of the relevant Treaty provisions, preserve institutional continuity, and furnish the certainty and legitimacy necessary for the Community to move forward together, with confidence and mutual respect”.
She said the framers of the Revised Treaty wisely recognised that disagreements concerning the interpretation of our constitutional instruments should be resolved by law, rather than by competing political interpretations.
“Therefore, resorting to the CCJ is not an act of confrontation. It is an affirmation of the very constitutional architecture that Member States created to safeguard the integrity of the Community. Regional integration depends upon trust, predictability, fidelity to agreed legal principles, and the rule of law.
“Over the decades, CARICOM has strengthened cooperation, deepened solidarity, and amplified the collective voice of the Caribbean in the international community. Those achievements can only endure where the institutions of CARICOM are administered transparently and consistently with the Revised Treaty, and with the legal framework to which every Member State has committed itself.
“The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago respectfully submits that having regard to all of the foregoing, and in all of the circumstances, the continuing absence of a formal and Treaty-compliant record of the purported decision to reappoint the Secretary-General, and the failure of subsequent meetings to achieve consensus on these issues, the mechanism of an Advisory Opinion from the CCJ is both timely and essential.”
The Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister said that “there is a substantial legal basis for concluding that both the Secretary-General and the General Counsel should recuse themselves from every aspect of CARICOM’s consideration with respect to a referral to the CCJ seeking an Advisory Opinion on the Secretary-General’s purported reappointment.
“The Secretary-General should recuse herself because the proposed Advisory Opinion directly concerns the legality of her own reappointment, and consequently, her own tenure of office. She has a direct personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the proposed proceedings. That alone is sufficient to require her withdrawal from every stage of the proposed CCJ proceedings.
“Furthermore, the Secretary-General’s prior participation in aspects of the reappointment process gives rise to a separate basis for recusal. Her involvement in administrative arrangements surrounding the Retreat and her involvement in the subsequent institutional explanation of the process create a conflict between her official responsibilities and her personal interest in the outcome. Those circumstances also give rise to a reasonable apprehension of apparent bias and undermine the institutional independence required of a referral concerning her own reappointment.”
CMC/pr/ir/2026