Feature image created using Canva Pro elements.
As part of the government of Trinidad and Tobago’s plan to raise the minimum alcohol consumption age from 18 to 21, and the legal age for marijuana use and gambling from 18 to 25, Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander noted that it will soon be mandatory for citizens to carry a form of identification with them at all times.
Speaking at a July 10 post-cabinet press conference at the Red House in Port of Spain — the seat of the country’s parliament — Alexander suggested the move would make it easier to “ascertain your age and your address” in order to assist in the fight against crime. The government also plans to boost the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service’s (TTPS) technological capabilities.
Alexander’s rationale, however, did not go over well in some quarters. Facebook user Kurt Seucharan-Fuentes asked:
What problem would be solved by raising the age of drinking to age 21? Do we have a problem with alcoholism between the ages of 18 to 21? […] If we do have a problem with alcoholism, does making it illegal for a particular age group solve the problem? What pressing issues did we have that caused us to vote against the previous government and vote this one in? Wasn’t crime one of them? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this is going to solve our crime problems? […] Do you even have a plan to tackle the issues you were voted in to solve?
Tongue firmly in cheek, journalist Paolo Kernahan quipped, “Now you have to wait to the ripe old age of 21 to go out and not get carded anywhere so you could ketch the power.” The Facebook thread that followed his comment gave rise to many opinions, with some social media users saying the measure was “a good start” and others sardonically suggesting, “This was one of the most pressing issues on the mind of the citizenry for decades. Not crime, not healthcare, not the economy. No. It was the legal age of rum consumption. Thank you. Now all is well with the world.”
Facebook user Antonio Decklan Ross felt that the move was counterintuitive, since “at 18, you are responsible enough to vote, drive, get married, work (join the army or police service and carry a gun) and enter into a contract but […] not old enough to consume alcohol.”
Former finance minister and current opposition member of parliament (MP) Colm Imbert tweeted:
So, now, if I decide to jog around the Queen's Park Savannah for exercise, or go to beach, or go hiking, I must have ID on me? And if I don't, I commit a criminal offence? This UNC Government is one of the most draconian and oppressive administrations in the Western Hemisphere
— Colm Imbert (@ImbertColm) July 13, 2025
The UNC refers to the United National Congress, which won the country’s last general election earlier this year by a landslide.
On a forum thread at CaribbeanCricket.com, one user who goes by the moniker “Sarge” was quick to offer context: “Choosing a government policy, tweeting about it, and hoping for public outrage is practically a rite of passage for politicians who are leaving office,” he began. “But is this just another instance of selective outrage, or is this the authoritarian overreach he claims?”
While he agreed that “a police state is not a place anyone wants to live,” Sarge also suggested that the issue deserved “a critical examination, particularly in light of global standards.” In many Global North nations, he continued, “carrying some form of ID is a legal requirement.” Certain American states also have stop-and-identify statutes.
“The purpose of these laws [is] to combat crime, expedite law enforcement, and stop underage drinking and gambling,” Sarge wrote, arguing that Trinidad and Tobago's escalating crime situation requires “more accountability and enforcement measures”: “Is it truly ‘oppressive’ to demand that you provide identification as proof of age in order to buy alcohol or gamble? Or is it a logical step to enforce the law and safeguard youth?”
That said, implementation of the law matters, and police discretion would have to come into play: “Implementation, checks and balances, and safeguarding individual rights and public safety should be the main topics of discussion.”
On X, Trini Fietser countered:
I carry NOTHING with me when I walk the streets of the capital city of Trinidad and Tobago! Why? Because of crime!#LeadershipMatters https://t.co/e93PkyFICY
— 🌴Trini Fietser🎉🚴🚶♂️🌳🇹🇹👀 (@TT_Fietser) July 15, 2025
In a letter to the editor of the Daily Express, Pastor Courtney Francois suggested that while citizens want to feel safe, the idea of having to carry ID at all times raises “deep concerns — not only about policy, but about principle.” Making the point that “laws should protect the innocent, not punish them,” he argued that “to place the burden of suspicion on every law-abiding citizen, while claiming to target a criminal minority, is to invert the very justice system we claim to uphold.”
Some of the potential negatives that Francois flagged include erosion of civil liberties; increased risk of discrimination, abuse, and presumption of guilt; suppression of movement; state surveillance and data misuse; and the criminalisation of poverty. “Imagine a child going to the parlour, the playground, or a neighbour’s home, only to face police action for not having an ID,” he posited. “Even citizens having to attend places of worship. Are we really willing to create a society where forgetfulness becomes criminal?”
A Trinidad and Tobago Newsday editorial also weighed in. Referencing an altercation that took place between a family from a disenfranchised area and plainclothes police officers on July 10, the editorial explained, “This incident captures why we believe the government’s mandatory ID card proposal is a poor fit with our country’s norms. If police do not present ID when confronting citizens, why should citizens carry theirs?”
Noting the lack of public trust in the police service — a mere eight percent — the op-ed felt that “until trust and confidence in the service [is] restored, police killings addressed and body cameras worn, we believe this measure an ill-timed expansion of police authority.” It also believed that keeping track of legal age limits could just as easily be achieved “through discrete co-operation with businesses” rather than requiring “widespread civil liberty incursions.”
“Assuming cops will be able to detain someone who cannot produce a card,” the editorial further argued, “then this measure would amount to an astonishing shifting of the burden of proof from the state onto the citizen. […] That is no small thing.”
The situation becomes even more complicated when biometric databases get into the mix, noting that the US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation finds “little evidence to support the argument that national IDs reduce crime. Instead, these systems create incentives for identity theft [and] create extreme risks to data security.”
One writer, speaking with Global Voices via WhatsApp on condition of anonymity, said that the proposed mandatory ID laws “bring to mind the ‘pass laws’ of South Africa, and the casual brutality of the police towards Black kids in the UK while carrying out what became known as ‘sus laws.’”
The discriminatory legislation enacted during the apartheid era restricted the movement of Black South Africans, controlling where they could live, work, and travel within the country. The United Kingdom also had similar legislation, the roots of which can be traced back to its 1824 Vagrancy Act, Section 4 of which essentially allowed the police to stop, search, and even arrest anyone they suspected of intending to commit an offence.
In the 1970s and ’80s, the law was used by law enforcement to disproportionately target Black and other ethnic minorities in the UK, of which diaspora Caribbean communities comprised a significant part. The sus law was repealed in 1981, but there were attempts to revive it in 2007. The Gloucestershire City Council says that “the method is still used today by police.”
In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, the writer continued, “We need to ask the question: which communities will bear the brunt of these stop-and-search laws?”
