Letter of the Day | A serious governance concern

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The controversial reappointment of Dr Carla Barnett as CARICOM Secretary General raises fundamental questions of law, treaty compliance, and institutional legitimacy. This is not merely a political disagreement but a serious governance concern. As a rules-based regional organisation, CARICOM derives its authority from fidelity to its founding instrument, the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. When that instrument is not strictly observed, the legitimacy of outcomes – however well-intentioned – is compromised.

The treaty is clear on a central point: the Secretary General is appointed by the Conference of Heads of Government. Article 31 establishes the office, while Article 24 vests authority for institutional leadership in the Conference. The treaty draws no distinction between an initial appointment and a subsequent term, nor does it recognise “reappointment” as a legally distinct act. In treaty interpretation, such silence is decisive. Where a single legal term is used without qualification, it must be applied uniformly. Any assumption of office therefore constitutes an appointment and must satisfy the same procedural requirements.

Those requirements are mandatory. Article 27 establishes consensus as the default decision-making mechanism of the Conference, except where the treaty expressly provides otherwise. No such exception exists for appointing the Secretary General. Article 31 is silent on alternative voting methods, leaving Article 27 fully operative.

Against this backdrop, the statement by CARICOM Chairman and Prime Minister of St Kitts and Nevis, Dr Terrance Drew, that the reappointment achieved the “required majority” is troubling. The treaty neither defines nor authorises majority voting for this purpose. A majority decision cannot lawfully substitute for consensus in a consensus-based organisation.

Consensus is not rhetorical; it is a legal standard requiring the absence of objection by any participating Member State. Once a Member State formally objects, consensus collapses as a matter of law. Trinidad and Tobago’s expressed opposition therefore places the legality of the process in jeopardy and is sufficient to undermine the validity of the appointment.

Additional concerns arise under Article 24, which conceives the Conference as a collective body of all Heads of Government or their authorised representatives. Decisions taken without the meaningful inclusion of all entitled members risk being ultra vires. The treaty does not empower restricted gatherings or informal caucuses to exercise Conference authority.

At a time of significant regional challenge, strict adherence to treaty obligations is indispensable. Legitimacy is earned through respect for law, process, and collective consent. Until these issues are addressed openly and in conformity with the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, the office of Secretary General remains institutionally compromised. CARICOM can – and must – do better.

CLINTON RATTRAY