Labour, power & political convenience

2026-02-22 - 01:27

Mickela Panday The unfolding financial crisis involving the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union (OWTU) is more than a story about debt. It is a story about leadership decisions, political positioning and the consequences when ambition outruns accountability. For years, the public was told that the union-linked refinery bid through Patriotic Energies represented hope. Hope for workers displaced after the 2018 closure of Petrotrin, hope for economic revival, hope for national pride. Instead, what has emerged is a sobering reality: entities connected to the effort borrowed substantial sums to pursue the refinery acquisition and repayment disputes involving millions are now before the courts. Workers deserve honesty about how we got here. The refinery bid was always a complex and demanding undertaking. Restarting and operating a refinery requires enormous capital, technical expertise and disciplined management. These are realities that should have been confronted with clear-eyed planning from the beginning. But beyond the financial questions lies something even more troubling: the political evolution surrounding this saga. The relationship between OWTU leadership and Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar was once openly confrontational. During her 2010–2015 administration, the union’s President General, Ancel Roget, engaged in repeated public clashes with her government over labour issues, energy policy and industrial relations. The rhetoric was harsh, the mistrust deep, and the political hostility unmistakable. That history matters. Because in October 2019, Persad-Bissessar, then opposition leader, publicly demanded transparency from the OWTU regarding the refinery bid. She questioned whether the process involving Patriotic Energies was free from third-party manipulation and raised concerns about the absence of publicly available shareholder information. Her position was straightforward: any entity seeking to acquire a national asset must meet the highest standards of disclosure and accountability. At the time, the union leadership rejected her criticism and pushed back strongly. Fast forward a few years, and the political landscape appeared to change dramatically. As financial pressures mounted around the refinery effort and its aftermath, the initiative’s most visible public champion, the President of the OWTU, was seen speaking on the opposition’s political platforms ahead of the 2025 general election. Political engagement by unions is not unusual in Trinidad and Tobago. But the contrast with earlier hostility was striking enough to raise legitimate public questions. Citizens are entitled to ask whether this was simply political evolution or political convenience. Because when organisations facing financial uncertainty move closer to political power, perceptions matter. Independence matters. Credibility matters. Trade unions exist to protect workers, not to place them at the centre of high-stakes commercial gambles. When union-linked ventures involve large borrowings, workers have a right to know what decisions were made, what risks were disclosed and what safeguards were in place. Transparency is not optional when members’ interests are involved. Equally important is the issue of consistency in political leadership. Persad-Bissessar’s 2019 demand for transparency regarding Patriotic Energies did not oppose worker participation in industry. It called for accountability in the management of a national asset. That principle remains valid today as financial questions surrounding the refinery effort continue to unfold. The contrast between past confrontation and later political alignment does not automatically imply wrongdoing. But it does highlight how quickly political relationships can shift when circumstances change. That reality should concern anyone who values institutional independence. For workers, however, this is not theoretical. Thousands of families were affected by Petrotrin’s closure. Many placed hope in promises that refinery ownership could restore livelihoods. Expectations were raised. Confidence was encouraged. The deepest cost is not financial; it is trust. Trust that leadership decisions are made prudently. Trust that political alliances do not compromise worker interests. Trust that promises are grounded in reality, not rhetoric. Trinidad and Tobago’s labour movement has a proud history built on courage, sacrifice and integrity. Preserving that legacy requires honesty when strategies fail and accountability when risks materialise. It also requires a clear separation between worker advocacy and political expediency. What makes this situation even more troubling is that while workers now face uncertainty, there has been no full public accounting of how the financial decisions surrounding the refinery bid were made, what risks were disclosed internally or what protections existed for the union and its members if the venture failed. These are not unreasonable questions; they are the minimum standard of transparency owed to workers whose trust and contributions helped sustain the institution. Accountability is not an attack on labour; it is the foundation that protects labour from being weakened by the decisions of those entrusted to lead it. Workers were sold hope that jobs were coming back and their sacrifices would pay off. Today, they are staring at debt, court rulings and uncertainty created by decisions they never made. Workers did not gamble their future. Leadership did. That is why accountability is no longer negotiable. The leadership of the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union, led by Ancel Roget, must answer to its members, and where judgement failed, heads must roll. Mickela Panday – Political Leader of the Patriotic Front and Attorney at Law