The key points are temporarily unavailable. You can still read the full Story below.
Main Points
GENEVA, November 10, 2026 — Trinidad and Tobago’s repeated states of emergency came under international scrutiny during its fourth United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on November 9, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. After 301 days under emergency powers, 5,800 arrests and international concerns over constitutional rights. Mexico called for emergency measures to remain exceptional, temporary and proportionate. Cuba raised concerns about repeated declarations, suspended liberties and mass arrests, while Germany questioned the human rights implications. The Trinidad and Tobago delegation, led by Chamyantie Lal, defended the Government’s crime-fighting measures, citing threats from organised criminal networks and existing constitutional safeguards. But the question remains: Can a government repeatedly declare an emergency to address a crime problem that has become permanent? 301 DAYS UNDER EMERGENCY POWERS On June 16, 2026, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) raised concerns about prolonged emergency powers in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Belize. The Commission reported that T&T had spent 301 days under states of emergency between December 2024 and January 31, 2026. Another emergency began on March 3, 2026, and was extended until September 17, bringing the country’s time under emergency measures to approximately 16 of the preceding 20 months. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar reported more than 5,800 arrests, with approximately 2,250 people not yet charged at the time of her September announcement. The IACHR warned that prolonged emergency measures risk normalising restrictions on civil liberties and increasing the possibility of arbitrary detention. An arrest is not a conviction. And emergency powers cannot replace effective policing. SURINAME: THE UN WARNING In its August 28, 2024 findings on Suriname, the UN Human Rights Committee questioned insufficient information about restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 emergency. It called for emergency legislation to guarantee that restrictions remain temporary, necessary, proportionate and subject to judicial review. Although Suriname’s review concerned pandemic restrictions rather than rolling crime-related emergencies, the principle applies equally: extraordinary powers require extraordinary justification. JAMAICA: 17 EMERGENCIES RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL Trinidad and Tobago should pay particular attention to Jamaica. On May 16, 2025, Jamaica’s Supreme Court ruled that 17 states of public emergency declared between 2018 and 2023 were unconstitutional. In Dayton Campbell v Attorney General of Jamaica, the Court found that successive emergency declarations were not justified under the constitutional standards and had, in certain instances, circumvented parliamentary oversight. The ruling challenged the idea that years of persistent crime could automatically constitute a continuing constitutional emergency. Jamaica’s Government defended the measures as lifesaving and announced plans to appeal. Ironically, the Jamaican judges also examined Trinidad and Tobago’s own Attorney General v Dumas case, in which the Privy Council affirmed the ability of citizens with sufficient public interest to challenge allegedly unconstitutional government actions. A Trinidad and Tobago precedent helped inform Jamaica’s constitutional challenge. Jamaica’s ruling now offers T&T a warning. DO EMERGENCIES ACTUALLY DEFEAT CRIME? Research published in 2025 by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED) questioned the long-term effectiveness of recurring emergency measures in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. The research highlighted how violence may decline temporarily or shift into neighbouring communities without criminal organisations being dismantled. Arresting suspects is not the same as securing convictions. Suppressing crime temporarily is not the same as defeating it. THE QUESTION GOVERNMENT MUST ANSWER Mexico, Cuba and Germany have now raised concerns at the UN. The IACHR has issued warnings. Suriname’s UN review reinforces the legal safeguards, while Jamaica’s Supreme Court has demonstrated the constitutional risks. The November 9 review was not a judicial finding that Trinidad and Tobago’s emergencies were unlawful. Nevertheless, it places the Government’s reliance on extraordinary powers under international scrutiny. As the UN review process moves toward consideration of its recommendations on November 13, 2026, the Government must explain the lasting results of these measures, the outcomes of thousands of arrests and how constitutional freedoms remain protected. If crime is permanent, can the emergency still be temporary? And when extraordinary powers become ordinary government policy, who protects citizens from the protectors?
GENEVA, November 10, 2026 — Trinidad and Tobago’s repeated states of emergency came under international scrutiny during its fourth United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on November 9, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
After 301 days under emergency powers, 5,800 arrests and international concerns over constitutional rights.
Mexico called for emergency measures to remain exceptional, temporary and proportionate. Cuba raised concerns about repeated declarations, suspended liberties and mass arrests, while Germany questioned the human rights implications.
The Trinidad and Tobago delegation, led by Chamyantie Lal, defended the Government’s crime-fighting measures, citing threats from organised criminal networks and existing constitutional safeguards.
But the question remains: Can a government repeatedly declare an emergency to address a crime problem that has become permanent?
301 DAYS UNDER EMERGENCY POWERS
On June 16, 2026, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) raised concerns about prolonged emergency powers in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Belize.
The Commission reported that T&T had spent 301 days under states of emergency between December 2024 and January 31, 2026.
Another emergency began on March 3, 2026, and was extended until September 17, bringing the country’s time under emergency measures to approximately 16 of the preceding 20 months.
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar reported more than 5,800 arrests, with approximately 2,250 people not yet charged at the time of her September announcement.
The IACHR warned that prolonged emergency measures risk normalising restrictions on civil liberties and increasing the possibility of arbitrary detention.
An arrest is not a conviction. And emergency powers cannot replace effective policing.
SURINAME: THE UN WARNING
In its August 28, 2024 findings on Suriname, the UN Human Rights Committee questioned insufficient information about restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 emergency.
It called for emergency legislation to guarantee that restrictions remain temporary, necessary, proportionate and subject to judicial review.
Although Suriname’s review concerned pandemic restrictions rather than rolling crime-related emergencies, the principle applies equally: extraordinary powers require extraordinary justification.
JAMAICA: 17 EMERGENCIES RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Trinidad and Tobago should pay particular attention to Jamaica.
On May 16, 2025, Jamaica’s Supreme Court ruled that 17 states of public emergency declared between 2018 and 2023 were unconstitutional.
In Dayton Campbell v Attorney General of Jamaica, the Court found that successive emergency declarations were not justified under the constitutional standards and had, in certain instances, circumvented parliamentary oversight.
The ruling challenged the idea that years of persistent crime could automatically constitute a continuing constitutional emergency.
Jamaica’s Government defended the measures as lifesaving and announced plans to appeal.
Ironically, the Jamaican judges also examined Trinidad and Tobago’s own Attorney General v Dumas case, in which the Privy Council affirmed the ability of citizens with sufficient public interest to challenge allegedly unconstitutional government actions.
A Trinidad and Tobago precedent helped inform Jamaica’s constitutional challenge. Jamaica’s ruling now offers T&T a warning.
DO EMERGENCIES ACTUALLY DEFEAT CRIME?
Research published in 2025 by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED) questioned the long-term effectiveness of recurring emergency measures in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.
The research highlighted how violence may decline temporarily or shift into neighbouring communities without criminal organisations being dismantled.
Arresting suspects is not the same as securing convictions. Suppressing crime temporarily is not the same as defeating it.
THE QUESTION GOVERNMENT MUST ANSWER
Mexico, Cuba and Germany have now raised concerns at the UN. The IACHR has issued warnings. Suriname’s UN review reinforces the legal safeguards, while Jamaica’s Supreme Court has demonstrated the constitutional risks.
The November 9 review was not a judicial finding that Trinidad and Tobago’s emergencies were unlawful. Nevertheless, it places the Government’s reliance on extraordinary powers under international scrutiny.
As the UN review process moves toward consideration of its recommendations on November 13, 2026, the Government must explain the lasting results of these measures, the outcomes of thousands of arrests and how constitutional freedoms remain protected.
If crime is permanent, can the emergency still be temporary?
And when extraordinary powers become ordinary government policy, who protects citizens from the protectors?
News Desk is the editorial publishing account for Tringlobe Media News, covering breaking news, public affairs, entertainment, community developments and regional stories across Trinidad and Tobago, the Caribbean and internationally.
