Ot­to Car­ring­ton

Se­nior Re­porter

ot­to.car­ring­ton@guardian.co.tt

April 2025 will be re­mem­bered as one of the most con­se­quen­tial months in Trinidad and To­ba­go’s mod­ern po­lit­i­cal his­to­ry. That month saw the for­mal an­nounce­ment of a gen­er­al elec­tion date, an in­tense cam­paign pe­ri­od, and a de­ci­sive shift in po­lit­i­cal pow­er on April 28.

Guardian Me­dia’s cov­er­age through­out the month cap­tured the pulse of the coun­try: height­ened po­lit­i­cal ten­sion, pub­lic con­cern over crime and gov­er­nance, de­bates about elec­toral in­tegri­ty, and ul­ti­mate­ly, the ex­pres­sion of de­mo­c­ra­t­ic will at the polls.

More than a se­quence of head­lines, April un­fold­ed as a defin­ing chap­ter in the na­tion­al sto­ry, one marked by civic en­gage­ment and in­sti­tu­tion­al scruti­ny.

April was con­se­quen­tial not on­ly po­lit­i­cal­ly but al­so so­cial­ly and eco­nom­i­cal­ly.

The month be­gan with clar­i­ty on a long-an­tic­i­pat­ed po­lit­i­cal de­ci­sion. Guardian Me­dia re­port­ed that Prime Min­is­ter Stu­art R Young, SC, for­mal­ly ad­vised Pres­i­dent Chris­tine Kan­ga­loo that Mon­day, April 28, 2025, would be polling day for the Gen­er­al Elec­tion. With Par­lia­ment dis­solved, Trinidad and To­ba­go of­fi­cial­ly en­tered cam­paign mode.

Al­most im­me­di­ate­ly, elec­tion ma­chin­ery across the coun­try shift­ed in­to high gear.

With the 2025 Gen­er­al Elec­tion loom­ing, Trinidad and To­ba­go’s po­lit­i­cal land­scape was dom­i­nat­ed by the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) and the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC).

Yet, April saw a grow­ing num­ber of small­er par­ties step­ping in­to the fray, hop­ing to dis­rupt the tra­di­tion­al du­op­oly, though vot­er aware­ness and sup­port were lim­it­ed.

In the 2020 elec­tion, 18 par­ties con­test­ed, with the PNM nar­row­ly win­ning 22 seats to the UNC’s 19.

The up­com­ing April 28 polls were shap­ing up to be equal­ly com­pet­i­tive, with at least 18 ad­di­tion­al par­ties ex­press­ing in­ter­est, in­clud­ing sev­en eye­ing the two To­ba­go seats.

Small­er par­ties chal­lenge tra­di­tion­al pow­er

Small­er par­ties em­ployed coali­tions to chal­lenge the PNM’s dom­i­nance. The UNC’s Coali­tion of In­ter­ests part­ners with groups such as the Laven­tille Out­reach for Ver­ti­cal En­rich­ment (LOVE), the Pro­gres­sive Em­pow­er­ment Par­ty (PEP), and the Oil­fields Work­ers’ Trade Union (OW­TU), rem­i­nis­cent of the Peo­ple’s Part­ner­ship coali­tion in 2010.

Mean­while, Gary Grif­fith’s Na­tion­al Trans­for­ma­tion Al­liance (NTA) joined forces with HOPE and the Com­mu­ni­ty Ref­or­ma­tion Net­work to form the Peo­ple’s Al­liance, al­though HOPE of­fi­cial­ly with­drew from the elec­tion while con­tin­u­ing to col­lab­o­rate with the al­liance.

In To­ba­go, par­ties such as the To­ba­go Peo­ple’s Par­ty (TPP) and the In­no­v­a­tive De­mo­c­ra­t­ic Al­liance (IDA) con­test­ed in­de­pen­dent­ly, pri­ori­tis­ing lo­cal in­ter­ests over coali­tions. TPP deputy leader Dr Faith Breb­nor stressed the goal of win­ning the two To­ba­go seats out­right be­fore ne­go­ti­at­ing on be­half of the is­land.

Oth­er To­ba­go par­ties, in­clud­ing the Uni­ty of the Peo­ple’s Par­ty, echoed sim­i­lar sen­ti­ments, em­pha­sis­ing au­ton­o­my and re­sis­tance to be­ing over­shad­owed by larg­er al­liances.

Across Trinidad, small­er par­ties cam­paigned on plat­forms promis­ing change and chal­leng­ing en­trenched po­lit­i­cal lead­er­ship. The Trinidad Hu­man­i­ty Cam­paign (THC), led by Mar­cus Ramkissoon, con­test­ed sev­en seats and high­light­ed cor­rup­tion as a cen­tral is­sue. Sim­i­lar­ly, the Trinidad and To­ba­go De­mo­c­ra­t­ic Front (TDF) and the Pa­tri­ot Front are po­si­tion­ing them­selves as al­ter­na­tives to the PNM and UNC, though they face chal­lenges re­lat­ed to cam­paign fi­nanc­ing and vis­i­bil­i­ty.

All Peo­ple’s Par­ty (APP) leader Kezel Jack­son em­pha­sised com­mu­ni­ty ser­vice and lead­er­ship cre­den­tials as dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing fac­tors for vot­ers, while crit­i­cis­ing the PNM gov­ern­ment’s per­ceived lack of di­rec­tion and vi­sion.

As Guardian Me­dia not­ed, the sheer vol­ume of can­di­dates un­der­scored vot­er frus­tra­tion, po­lit­i­cal frag­men­ta­tion, and a grow­ing ap­petite for choice even as tra­di­tion­al par­ty loy­al­ties re­mained in­flu­en­tial.

Po­lit­i­cal ral­lies, walk­a­bouts, and man­i­festo launch­es dom­i­nat­ed night­ly news­casts and front pages.

Po­lit­i­cal par­ties sharp­ened their mes­sag­ing around crime, the cost of liv­ing, pub­lic sec­tor wages, health­care, and gov­er­nance re­form.

Guardian Me­dia de­scribed the fi­nal stretch of cam­paign­ing as a “surge”, with par­ties fo­cus­ing heav­i­ly on vot­er mo­bil­i­sa­tion.

The rul­ing PNM de­fend­ed its record in of­fice, point­ing to in­fra­struc­ture in­vest­ment, en­er­gy sec­tor sta­bil­i­ty, and macro­eco­nom­ic man­age­ment.

The UNC, mean­while, cam­paigned on promis­es of safer com­mu­ni­ties, eco­nom­ic re­lief, and in­sti­tu­tion­al re­form, tap­ping in­to pub­lic dis­sat­is­fac­tion over ris­ing crime and every­day fi­nan­cial pres­sures.

Crime and elec­tion se­cu­ri­ty

Long be­fore the elec­tion, pub­lic safe­ty is­sues and crime dom­i­nat­ed dai­ly life and head­lines.

Guardian Me­dia’s re­port­ing through­out April un­der­scored the on­go­ing bur­den crime placed on com­mu­ni­ties.

One con­sis­tent theme was law en­force­ment’s stance on crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty and pub­lic per­cep­tion. In re­port­ing on prepa­ra­tions for elec­tion day, Guardian Me­dia not­ed con­cerns about threats to the elec­toral process:

The T&T Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) “had re­ceived cer­tain in­tel­li­gence sug­gest­ing a pos­si­ble dis­rup­tion” planned against the April 28 Gen­er­al Elec­tion, with act­ing Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice Ju­nior Ben­jamin con­firm­ing that au­thor­i­ties were in­ves­ti­gat­ing those re­ports.

This was re­vealed dur­ing a me­dia brief­ing at the Po­lice Ad­min­is­tra­tion Build­ing in Port-of-Spain. He con­firmed that the au­thor­i­ties had re­ceived “cer­tain in­tel­li­gence” sug­gest­ing a pos­si­ble dis­rup­tion was be­ing planned.

Ben­jamin de­clined to pro­vide fur­ther de­tails, say­ing, “The in­tel­li­gence would lead us to be­lieve that things are afoot to dis­rupt the elec­toral process, and we are say­ing to all per­sons, and this in­cludes all par­ties as well, we want any­one seek­ing to dis­rupt the elec­toral process. We will take a ze­ro-tol­er­ance ap­proach in deal­ing with that.”

He warned, “The TTPS is tak­ing a ze­ro tol­er­ance, and I want to make that ab­solute­ly clear, a ze­ro tol­er­ance as it re­lates to per­sons who have any in­ten­tion to dis­rupt the elec­toral process.”

Ben­jamin de­scribed the warn­ings as a “Ri­ot Act” of sorts by the au­thor­i­ties, sig­nalling that they are ready to deal with any sit­u­a­tion that could arise.

Claim­ing that T&T is known for hold­ing fair and vi­o­lence-free elec­tions, he ex­pressed hope that this would con­tin­ue.

But he stressed, “We will be tak­ing a ze­ro tol­er­ance to any­one, any group, any per­son who would seek to dis­rupt the peace and tran­quil­li­ty of T&T while the elec­tion is go­ing on or even any­thing lead­ing up to the elec­tion.”

In­fla­tion, en­er­gy set­backs, and Paria tragedy

For the month of April, the in­fla­tion rate was 1.5 per cent—a slight in­crease from the one per cent fig­ure re­port­ed in March by the Cen­tral Sta­tis­ti­cal Of­fice (CSO).

In its lat­est Con­sumer Price In­dex bul­letin, the CSO con­firmed an in­fla­tion rate of 1.5 per cent for April 2025. This rep­re­sent­ed the per­cent­age change in the All-Items In­dex from April 2024 to April 2025.

The CSO not­ed that the in­fla­tion rate for the com­par­a­tive pe­ri­od (April 2024/April 2023) was 0.5 per cent. In terms of the All-Items In­dex of 125.2—cal­cu­lat­ed from the prices col­lect­ed for the month of April 2025—that fig­ure was a slight uptick of 0.2 points, or 0.2 per cent, above the All-Items In­dex for March 2025.

Be­yond over­all eco­nom­ic con­di­tions, one sto­ry that re­ceived at­ten­tion in­volved trade union ac­tion and wage ne­go­ti­a­tions.

In April 2025, the long-await­ed Drag­on gas project with Venezuela ef­fec­tive­ly col­lapsed when the US Of­fice of For­eign As­sets Con­trol re­voked key li­cences that had al­lowed Trinidad and To­ba­go to pur­sue cross-bor­der gas de­vel­op­ment.

Prime Min­is­ter Stu­art Young con­firmed that both the Drag­on and Cocuina-Man­akin li­cences were re­voked, ef­fec­tive­ly shelv­ing the mul­ti-tril­lion cu­bic foot field project and forc­ing pol­i­cy­mak­ers to re­think en­er­gy strate­gies mov­ing for­ward.

The Paria is­sue al­so reared its head in April. The div­ing dis­as­ter oc­curred on Feb­ru­ary 25, 2022, off Pointe-a-Pierre in the Gulf of Paria, dur­ing main­te­nance on a 30-inch off­shore oil pipeline by Paria Fu­el Trad­ing Com­pa­ny and its con­trac­tor, LM­CS.

A sud­den dif­fer­en­tial pres­sure event—a dan­ger­ous pres­sure im­bal­ance—sucked five com­mer­cial divers in­to the pipeline, re­sult­ing in the deaths of four, while one sur­vivor, Christo­pher Boodram, man­aged to es­cape af­ter crawl­ing through the pipe for hours. In­ves­ti­ga­tions lat­er re­vealed that Paria had no for­mal emer­gency res­cue plan, and res­cue ef­forts were poor­ly co­or­di­nat­ed, high­light­ing gross neg­li­gence.

A gov­ern­ment-com­mis­sioned in­quiry rec­om­mend­ed con­sid­er­a­tion of cor­po­rate manslaugh­ter charges, and in 2024, Paria and LM­CS man­agers were charged un­der the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Act. The tragedy sparked on­go­ing pub­lic de­bate over work­place safe­ty, cor­po­rate re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, and com­pen­sa­tion for the fam­i­lies of the de­ceased divers.

The Gov­ern­ment in April an­nounced $1 mil­lion com­pen­sa­tion pay­ments to each fam­i­ly of the four divers who died in the 2022 Paria pipeline ac­ci­dent, as well as to the sole sur­vivor. The ex-gra­tia pay­ments were con­tro­ver­sial in tim­ing but marked a sig­nif­i­cant move to ad­dress long-stand­ing calls for jus­tice and re­lief for the vic­tims’ fam­i­lies af­ter years of le­gal dis­putes and pub­lic pres­sure.

Elec­tion night and

a new man­date

The Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) emerged vic­to­ri­ous in a close­ly watched elec­tion, se­cur­ing 26 of the 41 par­lia­men­tary seats, de­feat­ing the pre­vi­ous­ly dom­i­nant Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM), which won 13 seats. The To­ba­go Peo­ple’s Par­ty (TPP) won both To­ba­go seats.

Pre­lim­i­nary re­sults showed the UNC won with a com­mand­ing to­tal of 334,874 votes and se­cured 26 of the 41 par­lia­men­tary seats, ac­cord­ing to the Elec­tions and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion (EBC).

The to­tal num­ber of votes cast was 617,712, rep­re­sent­ing ap­prox­i­mate­ly 54 per cent turnout from the reg­is­tered elec­torate of 1,153,850 vot­ers across 41 con­stituen­cies.

The PNM fol­lowed with 220,160 votes, win­ning 13 seats, while the TPP se­cured 13,857 votes and claimed two seats. The Pro­gres­sive Em­pow­er­ment Par­ty (PEP) al­so made a no­table show­ing, earn­ing 9,379 votes, al­though it did not win any seats.

The EBC re­port­ed that 617,712 votes were cast, rep­re­sent­ing about 54 per cent vot­er turnout, with small­er par­ties such as the PEP, Trinidad Hu­man­i­ty Cam­paign (THC), and Pa­tri­ot­ic Front con­test­ing mul­ti­ple con­stituen­cies but not win­ning seats.

An­a­lysts not­ed that small­er par­ties aimed to cap­ture dis­en­chant­ed vot­ers and those who his­tor­i­cal­ly ab­stain, but the bulk of votes re­mained with the UNC and PNM. Po­lit­i­cal an­a­lyst Dr Win­ford James ob­served, “They tar­get peo­ple who are dis­en­chant­ed with the lead­er­ship their par­ty of­fers. Peo­ple want change, and the way to get change is through the third par­ties, but the third par­ties don’t have a base. They don’t have a race base like the UNC or the PNM.”

De­spite the vic­to­ry, re­counts were re­quest­ed in three con­stituen­cies—Arou­ca/Lopinot, Mal­abar/Mau­si­ca, and San Fer­nan­do East—as part of the EBC’s fi­nal ver­i­fi­ca­tion process.

The elec­tion not on­ly marked a trans­fer of po­lit­i­cal au­thor­i­ty, with UNC leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar as­sum­ing the new gov­ern­ment, but al­so set the stage for cit­i­zens’ ex­pec­ta­tions re­gard­ing gov­er­nance, crime re­duc­tion, eco­nom­ic sta­bil­i­ty, and ser­vice de­liv­ery.