The controversy surrounding the reappointment of CARICOM Secretary-General Dr. Carla Barnett has intensified following the release of an independent legal opinion from Trinidad and Tobago that concludes the process was procedurally flawed and potentially invalid under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
The 48-page opinion, prepared by Professor Rajendra Ramlogan of The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, argues that Barnett’s reappointment failed to comply with the constitutional framework governing CARICOM appointments and therefore may be legally void.
- Advertisement -
At the heart of the dispute is the claim that the decision did not receive the required level of participation from member states. According to Ramlogan, only 10 of CARICOM’s 15 member countries were effectively represented when the matter was finalized during a closed-door retreat in Nevis following the 50th Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government in February.
The issue first emerged after Trinidad and Tobago objected to both the process and the outcome of the reappointment. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar maintained that her country neither supported Barnett’s reappointment nor endorsed the procedure used to secure it. She had departed the summit early, leaving Foreign Affairs Minister Sean Sobers to lead Trinidad and Tobago’s delegation. However, Persad-Bissessar argued that Sobers was excluded from the retreat where the decision was ultimately made.
CARICOM officials have disputed that claim, stating that Sobers was invited but declined to attend because of concerns about the boat journey to the retreat location.
Seeking to defuse tensions, Jamaica’s Prime Minister, Andrew Holness, previously called for a special meeting of regional leaders to address the matter and preserve confidence in the Community’s governance processes.
Ramlogan’s legal opinion stresses that the issue is not about Barnett’s qualifications or performance but rather whether the proper constitutional procedures were followed. He argues that Article 24 of the Revised Treaty clearly assigns the authority to appoint or reappoint the Secretary-General to the Conference of Heads of Government and requires that such appointments be made on the recommendation of the Community Council of Ministers.
According to the opinion, the retreat in Nevis functioned differently from a formal conference meeting and therefore lacked the institutional authority to make a binding appointment. Furthermore, Ramlogan contends that designated representatives from Trinidad and Tobago, The Bahamas, and Antigua and Barbuda were effectively excluded from participating, despite treaty provisions allowing heads of government to appoint ministers or other representatives to attend meetings on their behalf.
The legal analysis also points to Rule 19 of CARICOM’s Rules of Procedure, which permits confidential heads-only discussions but requires representation rights to be restored when formal decisions are taken. Ramlogan argues that finalizing Barnett’s reappointment during a restricted session violated those protections and undermined the legitimacy of the decision.
Another key concern raised is the absence of a formal recommendation from the Community Council of Ministers. Ramlogan rejects suggestions that reappointments are exempt from this requirement, arguing that renewing a Secretary-General’s term constitutes a fresh constitutional appointment and therefore must follow the same process as an initial appointment.
The opinion further notes that Barnett’s reappointment was not prominently reflected in the official communiqué issued after the summit, raising additional questions about whether the decision received proper confirmation and formal adoption.
In his conclusion, Ramlogan argues that excluding designated representatives from the process materially affected the integrity of the Conference’s decision-making and rendered the resulting appointment constitutionally defective.
The legal challenge has added a new layer of complexity to an issue that has already exposed divisions within the regional bloc. While CARICOM leaders continue efforts behind the scenes to resolve the dispute, the controversy has sparked wider debate about transparency, governance, and adherence to treaty obligations within the Caribbean Community.
