Akash Sama­roo

Lead Ed­i­tor-Pol­i­tics

akash.sama­roo@cnc3.co.tt

The Elec­tions and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion (EBC) has con­firmed it was not asked to take part in the gov­ern­ment-led re­view of mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tion bound­aries.

How­ev­er, Rur­al De­vel­op­ment and Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Min­is­ter Khadi­jah Ameen said mu­nic­i­pal bound­aries are de­ter­mined by an Act of Par­lia­ment, while the EBC is re­spon­si­ble for elec­toral dis­trict bound­aries, stress­ing that the two op­er­ate un­der en­tire­ly sep­a­rate le­gal frame­works.

It’s an ex­er­cise that has gen­er­at­ed con­tention be­tween the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) gov­ern­ment and the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) Op­po­si­tion.

Min­is­ter Ameen has pushed back strong­ly against Op­po­si­tion al­le­ga­tions that the gov­ern­ment is at­tempt­ing to ger­ry­man­der the elec­toral map and ma­nip­u­late elec­toral bound­aries ahead of the next Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Elec­tions.

In a state­ment, Op­po­si­tion leader Pen­ne­lope Beck­les said the UNC ad­min­is­tra­tion’s move to es­tab­lish a Cab­i­net-ap­point­ed com­mit­tee to re­view mu­nic­i­pal bound­aries amounts to a “clear and present threat to democ­ra­cy” in Trinidad and To­ba­go.

Beck­les de­scribed the ini­tia­tive as a “thin­ly veiled at­tempt” to in­ter­fere with the elec­toral process un­der the guise of ad­min­is­tra­tive re­form, ar­gu­ing that it en­croach­es on the con­sti­tu­tion­al role of the EBC and rais­es con­cerns about po­lit­i­cal ma­nip­u­la­tion of elec­toral dis­tricts to en­trench the rul­ing par­ty.

She cau­tioned that a com­mit­tee ap­point­ed by Cab­i­net and al­leged­ly led by a gov­ern­ment min­is­ter could not cred­i­bly claim neu­tral­i­ty, re­gard­less of ref­er­ences to eq­ui­ty or da­ta-dri­ven re­form.

“The in­tegri­ty of our elec­toral sys­tem must be de­fend­ed,” Beck­les said, adding that bound­ary-set­ting must nev­er be­come a po­lit­i­cal tool and that the PNM would not re­main silent while de­mo­c­ra­t­ic safe­guards are placed at risk.

Guardian Me­dia asked the EBC if it is play­ing any role in the gov­ern­ment’s ex­er­cise.

The com­mis­sion re­spond­ed, “The EBC is aware of the Cab­i­net-ap­point­ed com­mit­tee to re­view the bound­aries of mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tions. The EBC has not been for­mal­ly en­gaged in, nor is it a par­tic­i­pant in, the said com­mit­tee.”

The com­mis­sion was then asked if the Cab­i­net com­mit­tee would have le­gal au­thor­i­ty to make changes to mu­nic­i­pal bound­aries with­out the EBC’s in­volve­ment.

“The EBC’s role is clear; the com­mit­tee may, how­ev­er, be tasked with mak­ing rec­om­men­da­tions. The min­istry should be able to pro­vide you with fur­ther par­tic­u­lars on the com­mit­tee’s re­mit.”

Asked if the EBC felt as if it should have been part of the process, the com­mis­sion said it is an in­de­pen­dent or­gan­i­sa­tion and there­fore would not be a mem­ber of such a com­mit­tee.

Mean­while, Min­is­ter Ameen has strong­ly re­ject­ed Beck­les’ claims, dis­miss­ing them as mis­chief and fac­tu­al­ly in­cor­rect.

In a re­sponse, Ameen said it was “ab­solute­ly false and mis­lead­ing” to sug­gest that the mu­nic­i­pal bound­aries re­view com­mit­tee is a UNC com­mit­tee or that it is head­ed by a gov­ern­ment min­is­ter.

She ex­plained that the body is a Cab­i­net-ap­point­ed com­mit­tee chaired by a re­tired se­nior tech­no­crat with no po­lit­i­cal af­fil­i­a­tion.

She al­so not­ed that calls for re­struc­tur­ing over­sized mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tions have been made for decades by busi­ness cham­bers, civ­il so­ci­ety groups, and po­lit­i­cal par­ties, in­clud­ing the PNM.

Ameen said se­nior PNM fig­ures have pre­vi­ous­ly ad­vo­cat­ed for the cre­ation of new bor­oughs, in­clud­ing a Tu­na­puna Bor­ough carved out of the Tu­na­puna–Pi­ar­co re­gion.

She said the re­view com­mit­tee has al­ready be­gun, and the process would be trans­par­ent, pro­fes­sion­al and fo­cused on gen­uine re­form rather than cos­met­ic changes.

Point­ing to pop­u­la­tion im­bal­ances among mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tions, Ameen not­ed that one re­gion cur­rent­ly has a pop­u­la­tion of ap­prox­i­mate­ly a quar­ter-mil­lion res­i­dents, while oth­ers have pop­u­la­tions as low as 17,000 to 20,000.

She point­ed to the leg­isla­tive process fol­lowed in 1990, when Coun­ty Coun­cils were con­vert­ed in­to Mu­nic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tions, and the sub­se­quent amend­ments in 1992 that re­sult­ed in the cur­rent 14 mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tions, as ex­am­ples of Par­lia­ment’s role in mu­nic­i­pal re­struc­tur­ing.

Ameen said it was trou­bling that Beck­les, giv­en her par­lia­men­tary ex­pe­ri­ence, would mis­rep­re­sent what she de­scribed as ba­sic le­gal dis­tinc­tions on a mat­ter as sen­si­tive as lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form.

Guardian Me­dia asked Ameen what will hap­pen with the rec­om­men­da­tions com­ing out of the com­mit­tee’s re­port, but she did not an­swer.

The min­is­ter was al­so asked to name the per­son head­ing the com­mit­tee and its mem­bers, how­ev­er that too went unan­swered.