In June 2026, the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MATT) requested a meeting with Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar over the prolonged lack of formal press access to the head of government and the exclusion of journalists from some events hosted by government ministries using state resources. The Prime Minister had not attended a post-Cabinet media briefing since 5 June 2025, apart from a brief question-and-answer session following the October 2025 national budget. MATT argued that occasional comments outside Parliament, responses through messaging applications and brief interactions at public functions do not replace formal press conferences where journalists can ask unscripted questions and pursue follow-up questions.
The event negatively affects the enabling environment for civil society because MATT, journalists and independent media houses are civil-society actors that facilitate access to public information, scrutinise government decisions and provide a platform for wider civic participation. Reduced access to the Prime Minister limits the media’s ability to obtain explanations and hold the country’s highest executive authority directly accountable on issues of national importance. The Prime Minister responded that her ministers were competent to answer questions, although ministers have reportedly declined questions outside their portfolios on the basis that they were instructed to “stay in their lane.”
MATT’s intervention was followed by a public response from Minister in the Ministry of Housing Anil Roberts, who argued that media organisations and journalists derive their standing from public trust and adherence to ethics, fairness and impartiality. He stated that where MATT, media houses, editors or journalists fail to meet these standards, “they lose their right to be, to stand as journalists, to have the rights and responsibilities as journalists.” This rhetoric compounds the access concern by portraying journalistic standing and rights as conditional on whether media actors satisfy a government representative’s assessment of their conduct. It risks delegitimising MATT’s advocacy, discouraging critical journalism and contributing to a hostile public discourse toward media actors. The event therefore affects freedom of expression, state openness and accountability, and public culture toward civil society.