‘Defective decision’ - UWI professor rips CARICOM over ‘flawed’ reappointment of secretary-general
Loading article...
An independent legal opinion out of Trinidad and Tobago has described the controversial reappointment of CARICOM Secretary-General Dr Carla Barnett as procedurally flawed, and legally void.
The conclusion was made in a 48-page document authored by Rajendra Ramlogan, professor of commercial and environmental law at The University of the West Indies, St Augustine.
The document, which was made public on Monday, determined that Barnett’s reappointment was invalid and not consistent with the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, as it lacked support from two-thirds of regional heads, noting that only 10 of the 15 member states had a say.
Ramlogan also indicated that foreign ministers and key delegates were illegally locked out of the decision-making process during a closed-door heads of government retreat in Nevis, following the 50th Regular Meeting of the Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government held in Basseterre, in February.
Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar argued that the twin-island republic did not support either Barnett or the process that re-elected her.
The position triggered a dispute, driven by Port of Spain’s objections to the procedure used during the retreat, noting that its representative did not attend.
Persad-Bissessar left the summit early and had claimed that acting head of delegation, Foreign Affairs Minister Sean Sobers, was not invited to the retreat.
CARICOM officials have countered that Sobers declined attendance, citing concerns about seasickness during the boat crossing to the venue.
Jamaica’s Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness subsequently called for a meeting of regional heads to resolve the matter.
“I think the solution really lies in assembling another heads meeting to have the matter addressed,” Holness said
. “That’s something that I have been pushing for quietly behind the scenes. I think it is distressing for a lot of persons within the region regarding what is being said in the public domain, but I know that all the heads are working behind the scenes to have this matter resolved,” Holness told Trinidad and Tobago’s Guardian newspaper last April in New York.
Ramlogan noted that the opinion does not proceed from any assessment of the personal suitability, competence or integrity of Barnett, the incumbent secretary-general.
“Rather, it addresses a narrower but more constitutionally important question: whether the process by which authority was renewed complied with the institutional and procedural requirements established under the Revised Treaty.
“On the material presently available, there is a substantial legal basis to question whether the reappointment satisfied the constitutional framework governing such decisions. The concerns identified do not arise from one isolated procedural event but from the cumulative effect of several interconnected issues,” he concluded.
The university professor noted that Article 24 of the Revised Treaty vests the authority to appoint and reappoint the secretary-general explicitly in the Conference of Heads of Government.
He asserted that the decision was discussed and finalised during the retreat in Nevis, which operated under structurally distinct procedures from formal meetings of the conference.
He argued that because the body exercising authority was not functioning in the institutional form prescribed by the treaty, it lacked the competence to make a formal appointment.
Ramlogan said Article 11(2) of the treaty guarantees that any head of government may designate a minister or another representative to attend any meeting of the conference.
However, the retreat was strictly restricted to heads only via logistical mandates and communications, he said, which effectively barred designated representatives – foreign ministers of Trinidad and Tobago, The Bahamas, and Antigua and Barbuda, who were heading their respective delegations due to their heads' absence – from participating.
Ramlogan pointed out that while Rule 19 of the CARICOM Rules of Procedure allows heads-only arrangements for confidential deliberations, Rule 19(4) explicitly dictates that representation rights revive when formal decisions are taken. Bypassing this constitutes an ultra vires use of subsidiary rules to override explicit treaty rights.
“The consequence is significant. A heads-only caucus may be lawful as a deliberative setting. A heads-only caucus cannot become the final decision-maker where the conference is exercising a formal Revised Treaty function. Otherwise, Rule 19(4) of the Rules would become meaningless,” he said.
Additionally, he pointed out that article 24(1) requires that the appointment of the secretary-general occur “on the recommendation of the Council”, meaning the Community Council of Ministers.
He rejected arguments that reappointments are exempt from this requirement, noting that a reappointment is a fresh conferral of constitutional authority upon the expiration of a fixed term. Because the Community Council was bypassed and never issued a formal recommendation, Ramlogan said the constitutional balance of power was breached.
“Article 24 of the Revised Treaty establishes that the appointment of the secretary-general occurs by the conference on the recommendation of the Council. This opinion concludes that reappointment is part of the same constitutional appointment architecture rather than a separate, unconstrained process. Re-appointment is not administrative continuity but the conferral of renewed constitutional authority following expiry of a fixed term,” he argued.
He said the decision was executed in a closed environment and was notably omitted from the official conference communiqué published on March 11, 2026. Without proper plenary confirmation or formal adoption, Ramlogan said the decision lacked complete legal finality.
“In conclusion, the heads' only restriction was inconsistent with the Revised Treaty because it deprived Trinidad and Tobago of the rights of participation guaranteed by Article 11(2) of the Revised Treaty and materially affected the integrity of Conference decision-making,” he said.
“…Consequently, the exclusion of the designated representatives rendered the resulting decision constitutionally defective and potentially void.”