The settlement of former Central Bank Governor Dr Alvin Hilaire’s constitutional claim brings an end to a costly and potentially embarrassing legal dispute for the State. It does not, however, resolve the questions that surrounded his dismissal, particularly the Government’s demand for information on the country’s largest users of foreign exchange.
Hilaire’s appointment was revoked on June 24, 2025, weeks after Government members publicly accused him of refusing to disclose information about businesses receiving foreign currency. The Government had also complained about difficulties obtaining information for the Auditor General.
On Monday, the State settled Hilaire’s claim shortly before the matter was due to proceed to trial. The settlement amount remains confidential, and neither party has publicly disclosed the full terms. While the resolution avoids a protracted court battle, it also means there will be no judicial determination of the circumstances surrounding his removal.
The public is therefore still without a clear explanation for why the Government chose to dismiss a Central Bank governor over an issue that remains unresolved to this day.
The Central Bank’s position was that Section 56 of the Central Bank Act limits the disclosure of information obtained in the course of its duties. That is not a minor technicality. Banking confidentiality is a fundamental safeguard that protects the commercial affairs of businesses and the financial information of customers.
Ironically, the same statutory provision was at the centre of the dismissal of former Governor Jwala Rambarran a decade ago after he identified major foreign exchange recipients. The courts later ruled that termination was unlawful, costing taxpayers millions.
The Government’s desire to understand how foreign exchange is distributed is entirely legitimate in a market where businesses continue to struggle for access to US dollars. Transparency, however, does not automatically require the public disclosure of the names of individual companies and the amounts they receive.
There is an important distinction between providing information to regulators for legitimate oversight and making confidential customer data public. The former is essential to accountability; the latter requires a clear legal basis and careful consideration of the consequences.
More significantly, since Hilaire’s dismissal, Section 56 has not been amended. The statutory protections governing banking confidentiality remain fully intact. If the Government has since accepted that disclosing private business allocations is legally impermissible, why was Dr Hilaire dismissed in the first place?
The broader foreign exchange challenge has also not disappeared. Businesses continue to report difficulties accessing foreign currency, while the Government still acknowledges the issue.
In his October Budget presentation, Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo outlined measures aimed at expanding access, including an additional US$10 million in monthly cash injections to commercial banks, reforms to the EXIMBANK allocation framework, and caps on allocations to individual entities under transparent eligibility criteria. These were policy solutions achieved through fiscal management, not confrontation with an independent regulator.
Having improved access to foreign exchange through lawful policy measures while quietly abandoning its demand to identify major forex users, the Government now owes the public a full explanation. It should clearly state its current position on foreign exchange disclosure and explain what has changed since Hilaire’s dismissal.
