The re­cent rev­e­la­tion by for­mer prime min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley that he was de­tained in An­tigua and in­formed he was on an In­ter­pol watch list is both star­tling and trou­bling.

Though the facts re­main murky, the im­pli­ca­tions are se­ri­ous—not just for Dr Row­ley, but for the in­tegri­ty of our in­sti­tu­tions and in­ter­na­tion­al rep­u­ta­tion.

Dr Row­ley, who was prime min­is­ter from 2015 to 2025 and for­mer­ly chaired both Cari­com’s Se­cu­ri­ty Coun­cil and the Coun­cil for For­eign and Com­mu­ni­ty Re­la­tions, shared with the me­dia at his Glen­coe home on Mon­day that while in St John's, he un­der­went ques­tion­ing and was no­ti­fied that In­ter­pol had flagged him.

His as­ser­tion im­me­di­ate­ly raised eye­brows, and while re­spons­es from lo­cal of­fi­cials have been swift and var­ied, the in­ci­dent de­mands a far more com­pre­hen­sive clar­i­fi­ca­tion from the State.

The no­tion that the hold­er of a diplo­mat­ic pass­port, and a re­spect­ed re­gion­al states­man, could be treat­ed in a man­ner typ­i­cal­ly re­served for in­di­vid­u­als sought for se­ri­ous in­ter­na­tion­al crimes, rais­es le­git­i­mate con­cerns.

The Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice has since de­nied mak­ing any re­quest for Dr Row­ley to be placed on an In­ter­pol Red No­tice or watch list, stat­ing there is no record or re­quest in the In­ter­pol data­base that would jus­ti­fy such ac­tion.

This sug­gests ei­ther a mis­un­der­stand­ing on Dr Row­ley's part or a lapse in com­mu­ni­ca­tion or pro­ce­dure else­where.

An ad­di­tion­al as­pect to this in­tri­cate nar­ra­tive is the re­sponse from Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, who ca­su­al­ly dis­missed Dr Row­ley's ex­pe­ri­ence with­out of­fer­ing any sub­stan­tial ev­i­dence to sug­gest that her ac­tions were in­formed by a com­pre­hen­sive in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

In­stead, she has de­mand­ed an apol­o­gy from the for­mer prime min­is­ter over what he re­vealed.

The op­tics of brush­ing aside such a se­ri­ous claim by a pre­de­ces­sor does lit­tle to re­as­sure the pub­lic or the in­ter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty.

While it is un­de­ni­able that con­crete proof of an In­ter­pol "Red No­tice" for Dr Row­ley re­mains elu­sive, the ab­sence of sol­id ev­i­dence does not au­to­mat­i­cal­ly equate to the ab­sence of a prob­lem.

Dr Row­ley, af­ter all, was de­tained and told by An­tiguan of­fi­cials that he was on a watch list, which clear­ly sug­gests that some­thing was in­deed amiss.

Was it a misiden­ti­fi­ca­tion? A pro­ce­dur­al er­ror? A de­lib­er­ate, yet un­war­rant­ed, ac­tion by An­tiguan au­thor­i­ties? Or, more un­set­tling­ly, a mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tion or lack of trans­paren­cy from lo­cal agen­cies?

At min­i­mum, it re­flects a break­down in com­mu­ni­ca­tion or pro­ce­dur­al pro­to­cols—one that should not oc­cur with a for­mer head of gov­ern­ment. 

It al­so un­der­scores the need for greater over­sight and trans­paren­cy in how in­for­ma­tion about pub­lic of­fi­cials is shared with in­ter­na­tion­al bod­ies.

This is not a mat­ter to be dis­missed as po­lit­i­cal the­atre. 

When a na­tion’s for­mer leader is de­tained abroad un­der sus­pi­cious cir­cum­stances, the cit­i­zens de­serve straight an­swers.

Giv­en Dr Row­ley's stature, a thor­ough, in­de­pen­dent in­ves­ti­ga­tion is war­rant­ed to as­cer­tain the full facts and as­sure the pub­lic that such an in­ci­dent, what­ev­er its true na­ture, will not be re­peat­ed with­out prop­er cause and due process. 

Any­thing less would leave an un­set­tling ques­tion mark hang­ing over the coun­try's in­ter­na­tion­al re­la­tions and how our for­mer lead­ers are treat­ed.