Articles by Martin Daly

Technology

Daly Bread: On Boodoosigh’s quizzical appointment, and Tancoo’s soothing but ambitious Budget

Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh is worthy of holding the office of Chief Justice to which he was appointed on Wednesday and I congratulate him. He is a person who may be able to heal some of the wounds that his vulnerable predecessor, former Chief Justice Ivor Archie, inflicted on trust and confidence in the Judiciary. Nobody knows why, but former Chief Justice Archie abruptly activated his notice given last month that he intended to retire. Regrettably, it appears that the acting President of the Republic botched the express constitutional requirement for consultation by that office when the occasion for the appointment of a chief justice arises. My comments on that fiasco were already made to the media. Turning therefore to other current anxieties about the state of the nation, the annual Budget presentation that is made in the House of Representatives in October has long ago evolved into a lengthy address by the Minister of Finance on the state of our island nation. This October, more than ever, open-minded citizens are wrestling to arrive at an accurate assessment of the state of our tiny island nation, which once had a solid gross domestic product (GDP) but was left to remain in persistent economic decline hurting many people. We are also proof that a healthy GDP does not reveal the state of the nation in terms of standard of living and well-being. Quality of life in Trinidad and Tobago has been gravely compromised by violent crime, highlighted by high murder rates and the commission of murder and other serious crimes with widespread impunity and a persistently low crime detection rate. On top of the economic decline, the latest State of Emergency declared to combat violent crime will end this month. How effective has this State of Emergency been and what next? Davendranath Tancoo, MP, is the minister of finance of the United National Congress (UNC) Government, which was elected after comprehensively defeating the People’s National Movement (PNM) last April. He made the annual budget presentation on 13 October. In this column in August 2024, while the PNM were still in government, I expressed concern that the country might go broke. In response, a highly placed government source informed me then that we were not going to go broke. I remained unconvinced because, as is well recognized—other than in one year when global conditions triggered a spike in energy prices—government expenditure has greatly exceeded revenue, routinely producing sizeable deficits. Despite this, there has been insignificant action towards socio-economic reform, preferably by means of more gradual shifts in the way the country is run, rather than in the form of the usually harsh terms of structural adjustment. Instead of reform, over many decades in Trinidad and Tobago, all of our governments have simply sought to share the wealth through transfers and subsidies—for example, funding make-work programs, fuel subsidies and uneconomic utility rates—even while permitting certain state enterprises not to pay their huge utility bills. These are serious strains on the country’s revenue while revenue has been persistently declining. As narrow-minded as our partisan politics are, it might upset UNC party zealots to have these concerns expressed at the beginning of another UNC reign. However, these concerns have been somewhat soothed by the emphatic projection of the oratorically gifted Minister Tancoo, that the budget deficit will be brought down in 2026 to $3.87 billion from the 2025 overall deficit of $9.67 billion, which he reportedly estimated in his mid-year review. Minister Tancoo has therefore built into his 2025/2026 budget presentation, clear means by which to measure its accuracy and success. Hopefully, more borrowing, “creative accounting” and grants from international sources will not be used to foster unrealistic claims of success at bringing the deficit down to this Government’s projected amount. Sadly, elements of the PNM, now in Opposition, remain so punch drunk from the catastrophic election defeat into which former Prime Ministers Dr Keith Rowley and Stuart Young led the party, that they were pitifully outmanoeuvred in the now concluded House of Representatives debate. I recommend that the party go into rehab—that is political rehab—and come out of it clean of their old ideas and the constant reflex to moan about their rejection.

Technology

Daly Bread: Revisiting “arbitrary” Covid travel exemptions and T&T’s “narrow” suffering

This week I am returning to the recent Court of Appeal declaration that it was a breach of the constitutional rights of two citizens of Trinidad and Tobago (the Applicants), who were denied re-entry into Trinidad and Tobago when the borders were closed during the Covid-19 pandemic. At the material time, the then People’s National Movement (PNM) Government, through the Ministry of National Security, were granting exemptions to permit re-entry. However, there were no published criteria for the grant of exemptions and the Applicants were not successful in obtaining exemptions. The period when there were no published criteria was between March 2020 and July 2020. Criteria were released on 24 July 2020 in response to a Freedom of Information request. I am returning to this subject because zealots of the red and yellow respectively have cherry-picked certain statements in the judgments of the Court and are using them for purposes such as personal attacks on Dr Roshan Parasram, who was the chief medical officer during the period of the pandemic. Stuart Young, now an Opposition MP, was minister of national security at the time and subsequently briefly held office as prime minister before the PNM badly lost the April 2025 General Election. He has also commented. I return below to his comments. It may be useful therefore for readers to see what the fundamentals of the decision are and make their own assessments as I share mine. The fundamental pillar of the decision is set out in paragraph 111 of the judgment where Justice of Appeal Boodoosingh states as follows: “Having said that the Covid-19 pandemic led to Trinidad and Tobago taking drastic action in that regard in closing its borders to all persons including its citizens, in hindsight, it is easy to criticize such decisions and to say it should not have been done. “The authorities were dealing with very difficult challenges which included the ability of the health care system to cope if a sudden influx of cases came in. Further, closure of borders was not unprecedented. Democratic Commonwealth states such as New Zealand and Australia had similar closures. Then came the qualifying statement: “But such drastic action, howsoever necessary it may have been felt at the time, cannot take away from the position that once an exemption policy was decided upon, it was incumbent to have a fair policy including criteria for permitting entry. “Once it was decided that some would be let in immediately, and others would have to wait a longer time, there must have been published criteria to guide how those permissions would be granted. If there were not, then arbitrariness would follow. “It would mean that it was up to the Minister to decide without limitation. He could allow one in and exclude another for no reason.” In an important preceding statement at paragraph 28, referring to the non-disclosure of the criteria, Justice of Appeal Bereaux said: “The effect of that non-disclosure was that nationals making applications were essentially ‘shooting in the dark’ and hoping that the application captured all that had purchased with the Minister. That is the epitome of arbitrariness.” Stuart Young has described the decision as being “a very narrow ruling” and one that related only to a short time when there were no criteria. Interestingly he reportedly “noted that Bereaux said that the issue was not a travel ban but how exemptions to the ban on re-entry had been managed”. (See Trinidad Newsday 2 October 2025.) Once it is noted that management of exemptions is an issue, that issue does not go away simply because criteria were disclosed in July 2020. What if, those criteria were overlooked or breached and, as I raised last week, persons were permitted to re-enter for Christmas and other vacations, weddings and other occasions only to leave again? What if exemptions were granted simply as a result of a phone call to a minister? I invite the current Government to look into the exemptions and bus’ a few marks about this. Meanwhile Stuart Young must have forgotten in his comments to express sorrow for the horrible plight of the Applicants on whose cases the Court adjudicated. Their suffering was not “narrow”.