Pause the decision! – Kaieteur News

(Kaieteur News) – What should have been a straightforward decision concerning the renewal of CARICOM’s Secretary General’s term has now developed into a major controversy within the Community. And it is not advisable that the issue be swept under the carpet.

We were told that the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago departed the recent Heads of Government Conference before the holding of the Caucus. Then we were treated to the subplot involving the Foreign Minister and alleged statements about seasickness.

The Caucus is the private consultative meeting of CARICOM Heads of Government, traditionally reserved for frank discussion among leaders on sensitive political and strategic matters before formal decisions are finalized. It is therefore ordinarily attended only by the Heads themselves.

However, CARICOM’s governing arrangements provide that where a Head of Government is unable to attend, he or she may designate a representative to participate in that capacity, most commonly the Minister of Foreign Affairs or another duly authorised senior minister. In that sense, while the Caucus is designed as a forum for Heads, the rules of the Community contemplate continuity of representation so that a member state is not disenfranchised merely because its leader is unavoidably absent.

In relation to the seasickness remarks, the Foreign Minister of Trinidad is reported to have said that the remark was in jest. But while many have weighed in on the perception that Trinidad and Tobago absented itself from meeting that dealt with the reappointment of the Secretary General, there is an issue that has reared its head. And it is being ignored by most commentators. It is being alleged that correspondence was sent from the CARICOM Secretariat stating that the Caucus was for Heads of Government only and, in fact insisting that it is the desire that only Heads should attend.

If such correspondence exists, and if it was communicated to Trinidad and Tobago or its representatives, then we are no longer discussing who absented themselves to who joked badly. We are discussing whether the established rules of the Community were bypassed.

Because CARICOM rules allow for representation. Prime Ministers, being inconveniently human, cannot always be everywhere at once. They may have other pressing matters to deal with. Hence, substitutes exist.

If a member state was effectively told, “No, no representatives, only actual Heads may enter the Caucus,” then one has to ask: by whose authority? Was this a formal procedural decision? A misunderstanding? A typo? If such correspondence was indeed sent, it become the fly in the ointment – an overlooked complication, flaw, or inconvenient fact that undermines what seemed straightforward.

These questions matter because CARICOM decisions are made by consensus not by majority. And yes, once three-quarters of Heads are present, consensus decisions of those present are carried.

But presence achieved through alleged exclusion adds a different complication to what should have been a straightforward issue. One cannot celebrate consensus if indeed the guest list was narrowed. And I am not saying it was. I am saying that if this was the case, then the problem is no longer straightforward.

Our Heads are seasoned enough to understand the implications of procedural controversies. Once member states procedural controversies arise, this threatens the unity of the regional community.

Some will argue that this issue is being overblown. They will urge maturity, calm, and moving forward. These are admirable sentiments, often expressed by people who benefit from everyone moving on quickly. But maturity is not pretending confusion is clarity. Calm is not the same as indifference. And “moving forward” is frequently what one says while backing away from accountability.

So let us be practical. If the alleged correspondence is fictitious, then it should be exposed immediately. If genuine, then its source must be identified. Who drafted it? Who approved it? Was it an unfortunate WhatsApp message?

Until that is clarified, the renewal of the Secretary General’s term should be revisited—not as punishment but as essential housekeeping.

There is precedent for pausing decisions when procedural doubt arises. Courts do it. Boards do it. Even families do it. CARICOM should not be held to a lower standard.

There is nothing to suggest that the present controversy is personal or directed at the individual holding the office of Secretary General. On the contrary, the differences appear to centre on the procedure by which the decision was reached, particularly questions of attendance, representation, and whether the established rules of the Community were properly observed.

And let us be candid: if the Secretary General’s reappointment is solid, transparent, and without procedural irregularities, then an independent review will only strengthen it. Truth fears no audit.

To revisit the matter now would not weaken CARICOM.  It would rescue it from possible fragmentation and disunity.

The Caribbean has enough genuine crises—crime, debt, climate threats, cricket collapses—without manufacturing a procedural melodrama over who was allowed in a room.

So yes, a strong case now exists to pause, investigate, and reconsider the second term appointment until the facts are known. If the correspondence never existed, wonderful. If it did, then we need answers before we proceed.

Otherwise, CARICOM risks becoming less a community of sovereign states and more of a club where the seating determines decision-making.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)