By Dr Jack Warner
Former Finance Minister Colm Imbert has launched a blistering attack on Trinidad and Tobago’s 2027 National Budget, calling its financial projections a mirage and warning that the economy is heading for serious trouble. Coming from a politician who controlled the nation’s finances for almost a decade, his intervention cannot be dismissed as ordinary Opposition rhetoric. But neither should his experience shield him from the most uncomfortable question of all: how much of the economic predicament he now condemns developed under his own stewardship?
Imbert possesses considerable technical knowledge of fiscal management. His criticisms therefore carry weight, particularly when grounded in official economic data. His parliamentary intervention reportedly highlighted a 2.2 per cent decline in real GDP, a 19.8 per cent contraction in petrochemicals, a 6.6 per cent decline in the energy sector and weakening business borrowing. These are troubling indicators deserving serious examination. A government that ignores such warning signs risks mistaking political optimism for economic recovery.
The 2027 Budget projects expenditure of $63.368 billion against revenue of $59.729 billion, producing a deficit of $3.639 billion, equivalent to approximately 2.1 per cent of GDP. Its calculations assume oil at US$77 per barrel and natural gas at US$5 per MMBtu. Imbert is justified in questioning whether these assumptions are sufficiently prudent, particularly in an economy vulnerable to volatile energy markets and production constraints.
However, challenging fiscal projections is only half of a credible Opposition’s responsibility. The other half is showing which alternative assumptions to adopt, which expenditures to adjust, and how the resulting financial obligations would be met. Condemning a budget as fictitious without presenting a convincing alternative fiscal framework leaves citizens with criticism, not confidence.
Imbert also questioned the Government’s announced $250 increase in senior citizens’ pensions, arguing that existing eligibility restrictions could prevent some pensioners from benefiting. He raised outstanding back pay owed to public servants and criticised the Budget presentation’s lack of sufficiently clear economic forecasts. These are legitimate concerns. Citizens deserve transparency about who benefits from government measures, what liabilities remain unpaid and whether projected economic growth is realistic.
Yet Imbert’s position carries an unmistakable irony. Trinidad and Tobago’s dependence on hydrocarbons, persistent foreign exchange difficulties, inadequate diversification and vulnerability to fiscal shocks did not begin in April 2025. They defined the PNM’s decade in government. Imbert was not an outside observer of those difficulties. He was the Minister of Finance responsible for confronting them.
If diversification remains inadequate, what measurable transformation occurred during his tenure? If declining energy production threatens fiscal stability, how effectively was that vulnerability addressed during his time in office? If government borrowing and unpaid obligations now trouble the country, what lasting reforms did his administration introduce to prevent their recurrence?
These questions are not intended to absolve the present Government. They establish the standard of accountability that must apply equally to those who govern and those who previously governed.
Indeed, Imbert’s experience should make his contribution more constructive, not merely more combative. He understands the complexities of revenue forecasting, expenditure commitments, public debt and the difficult trade-offs involved in balancing social protection with fiscal sustainability. Few Opposition parliamentarians possess comparable experience. That expertise should be deployed to present a credible economic alternative.
The country needs to hear which spending programmes he considers unsustainable, how he would finance outstanding obligations, what policies could restore private investment and which concrete initiatives would generate additional foreign exchange. More importantly, citizens deserve to know why those remedies would succeed today when longstanding structural problems remained unresolved during his administration.
The Government, meanwhile, cannot escape scrutiny by invoking the PNM’s failures. Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo must defend his revenue projections, explain his expenditure priorities, and show how the Budget’s promises will translate into measurable improvements in employment, productivity, and living standards.
Ultimately, Imbert’s intervention exposes a larger weakness in our political culture: the tendency to demand accountability from successors without accepting responsibility for one’s own record. Trinidad and Tobago deserves better than competing accusations of economic incompetence.
Imbert has the experience to be a formidable critic. What remains to be demonstrated is whether he can become an equally convincing architect of solutions. The country needs his expertise, but it also deserves his accountability.
