The notion of reparations for slavery in the West Indies in general, and Trinidad in particular, is at best na�ve, at worst, self-indulgent quixotism among the, ahem, intelligentsia. Reparation's central premise is selectively applying not the laws, but the moral politics, of the present to the past.
The definitive statement on reparations was Skip Gates's in the NY Times on April 22, 2010: Ending the Slavery Blame Game. Predictably, it attracted fire and brimstone from hardcore Afrocentrists (who, in the US, as in Trinidad, are effortlessly dismissible). But sober commentators pointed to the unique experience of African Americans, many of whom remain hobbled by the legacy of slavery.
This is not so easily dismissed, but (and read this next bit closely): Trinidad and the West Indies are not the US, and had different experiences of slavery. Companies of free black US soldiers, and their families, who sided with the British in the War of 1812, lived in the Company villages in south Trinidad quite happily, notwithstanding their enslaved brethren in close proximity.
And since slavery lasted only a half-century in Trinidad, and half the population has a completely different history, it's more than plausible that our contemporary problems have little to do with slavery. Even in islands with longer periods of slavery, colonialism lasted about 130 years (1834-1960s) and the more recent experience would persist institutionally and psychologically.Apropos, what follows is specific to Trinidad, and might be only in the most general terms applicable regionally, given broad historical divergences.