Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister Darrel Allahar says the financial survival of Trinidad and Tobago’s media houses is not the Government’s responsibility, as he defended proposed changes that would allow public authorities to publish annual statements online instead of in newspapers.
Meanwhile, Minister of Public Administration and Artificial Intelligence Dominic Smith pushed back against concerns over proposed amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), insisting the changes will not restrict citizens’ access to information or alter how requests for official documents are made.
Smith and Allahar made the assurance while piloting the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2026 in the Senate yesterday, arguing that the legislation is narrowly focused on modernising how public authorities publish information.
The proposed amendment would remove the requirement for a public authority’s annual public statements to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in Trinidad and Tobago. Instead, the statements could be published either in a daily newspaper or on a publicly accessible website.
Smith: No hidden agenda
“The bill does not alter the right of access established under the Freedom of Information Act. It does not restrict the categories of information that citizens may access. It does not introduce new exemptions or alter process by which a citizen may request an official document,” Smith said.
He said the amendments are intended to “update and streamline” publication requirements under Part Two of the Act by expanding the mechanisms through which information is made available.
Smith said the changes are necessary as Trinidad and Tobago moves towards a more digitally enabled state.
Under the proposed amendment, public authorities would still be required to publish information in the Gazette, while the second method of publication could either be a daily newspaper or a publicly accessible website.
He also sought to pre-empt criticism from the Opposition, declaring there was “no hidden agenda” behind the proposed changes and describing the Government as one of “transparency and accountability.”
Browne: Information
must remain visible
Opposition Senator Dr Amery Browne accused the Minister of surrounding what he described as a relatively simple amendment with “hyperbole” and “filibuster.”
Despite his criticism, Browne made clear the Opposition was inclined to support the legislation.
He said the Opposition’s role was not simply to stand and approve a Bill, but to examine its implications and identify potential pitfalls.
One of his major concerns was whether moving publication from newspapers to websites could reduce the visibility of important government information.
Browne questioned what constitutes a “publicly accessible website” and whether simply uploading documents online would guarantee citizens could find them.
He also raised concerns about search-engine visibility, broken links, difficult-to-navigate websites and documents being published in formats that may be difficult for some citizens to access.
Browne also questioned whether the Government had calculated the potential savings from allowing state agencies and public authorities to abandon newspaper publication in favour of online publication.
Attzs describes move as ‘sensible modernisation’
Independent Senator Dr Marlene Attzs endorsed the general intent of the legislation, describing it as “sensible modernisation.”
However, she echoed Browne’s concerns over the distinction between information being published and information being meaningfully accessible.
Attzs questioned what the Government means by a “publicly accessible website”, including how easily information must be found, what format it must be provided in and how long it must remain online.
She also warned that digital availability does not necessarily mean universal accessibility.
Gibbings raises concern over ‘either-or’ approach
Temporary Independent Senator and founding president of the Association of Caribbean Media Workers Wesley Gibbings took the debate into another dimension, warning that the proposed “either-or” approach could have consequences for the already struggling legacy media sector.
Gibbings declared his interest in the future viability of legacy media, arguing that newspapers are not simply platforms for carrying government notices, but institutions that employ professional journalists.
“Legacy media bring us journalism. New media, new platforms, propagandists don’t bring you journalists,” he said.
He warned that undermining the financial base of traditional media could weaken an institution that remains important to public accountability.
Gibbings said his concerns formed part of a wider discussion about access to information and transparency, although he acknowledged that the Bill before the Senate was specifically limited to annual public statements.
He was particularly concerned by the Bill giving public authorities a choice between newspaper publication and online publication.
“The either-or is what I have the problem with,” he said.
He predicted that public agencies facing financial pressures would likely choose the cheaper online option over paying for newspaper space.
Allahar: Not our job to
save media houses
Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister Darrel Allahar argued that the Government should not be expected to spend tens of thousands of dollars on newspaper advertisements when the same information could be published online.
Allahar said annual public statements could run to 15 or 16 pages and with approximately 271 public authorities required to publish these statements, he said the expenditure could become substantial.
But Allahar went beyond the question of cost, making clear that the Government did not see its role as financially supporting struggling media houses.
He pointed to declining print circulation and the migration of advertising spending to digital platforms.
Allahar also dismissed the argument that the Government should continue newspaper publication to help sustain the media industry, pointing to the Freedom of Information Act’s requirement that disclosure be facilitated “at the lowest reasonable cost.”
