The National Trade Union Centre (NATUC) has reaffirmed its “unwavering solidarity” with Mr. Nicholas Francis in his case against the State, and it asserts that this is not simply a personal injury lawsuit but a fundamental human rights and industrial relations matter. The claim is brought on behalf of Mr. Francis’ late wife, Alisha Kanna Seebaran, who suffered a crippling neurological injury 48 hours after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine which she took in order to keep her job. NATUC’s General Secretary, Mr. Michael Annisette, has described the matter as one of “national conscience”, stating that “No worker in Trinidad and Tobago must ever be forced to choose between their employment and their personal medical decisions. No policy, no employer, and no government directive must ever be allowed to trample upon the dignity, conscience, constitutional freedoms, and fundamental rights of working people.”
Mr. Francis is represented in the matter by Mr. Kingsley Walesby, Mr. Alvin Ramroop, and Ms. Stephanie Rajkumar, Attorneys at Law, of San Fernando. On 27 May 2026, the Second Defendant, the North Central Regional Health Authority, filed a Notice of Change of Attorney in the High Court, formally replacing its in-house legal team with Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan SC of Freedom Law Chambers — a firm known, during the pandemic for its constitutional challenges to State overreach; specifically, the prohibition on open-air Hindu cremations.
During the pandemic NATUC joined forces with TTCAN to champion workers’ rights to bodily sovereignty and to employment regardless of COVID vaccine status. NATUC has maintained that vaccination status is a part of a worker’s private medical record and that no worker should be compelled to disclose their vaccination status as a condition of employment. Since 2021 and throughout the pandemic it has been the most vocal trade union federation to oppose vaccine coercion in the workplace.
When former Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley moved in late 2021 to furlough unvaccinated public servants with a “no work, no pay” ultimatum, NATUC advised those workers to report for duty and warned that withholding their wages would amount to an unlawful “lockout” which would be challenged in the Industrial Court. In January 2022, NATUC called for the abolition of all “safe zones” and quasi-safe zones, writing to the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) and the Minister of Labour to point out the irrationality and futility of these measures. Simultaneously, both NATUC and TTCAN called for a rigorous protocol of voluntary informed consent before vaccination, and for the establishment of an independently audited system to report and monitor vaccine adverse events and injuries.
On 11 January 2022, NATUC and TTCAN brought citizens who suffered severe adverse events following immunization (AEFI) before the national media, pleading with the Ministry of Health to acknowledge their plight. It was through this advocacy that Alisha’s crippling injury, as well as injuries suffered by others, was brought to the attention of the general public. Still today, workers, and in particular young men and women who believe they may have suffered, or continue to suffer, ill effects from the COVID vaccine remain unacknowledged. This claim seeks redress which would safeguard bodily sovereignty and the individual’s right to choose or refuse what they put into their body.
The claim raises fundamental questions about public health ethics, informed consent and constitutional rights in the context of a public health emergency:
1. whether the unlicensed regulatory status of a vaccine, brought to market under an Emergency Use Listing (EUL) because of limited safety testing, was a pertinent fact that necessitated disclosure to the recipient in order to obtain their informed consent; and
2. whether the “Safe Zone” regulation, which conditioned access to employment on the premise that the EUL vaccine prevented transmission, was rational if there was no basis for that premise, and whether the authors of this regulation were diligent to prevent an unnecessary infringement of the citizen’s right to freedom of movement, assembly and access to work.
These underscore the concerns NATUC and TTCAN voiced in 2022; that novel vaccines with limited safety testing, market as “safe and effective”, warranted full disclosure of their emergency-authorization status in the process of obtaining informed consent and that the Safe Zone regulation was irrational and draconian, and rested on the baseless presumption that the vaccines prevented transmission.
The claim, brought by Mr. Nicholas Francis on behalf of his late wife Ms. Alisha Kanna Seebaran, places before the High Court matters of constitutional importance which bear on every citizen’s right to life, liberty, bodily autonomy, and basic freedoms during a public health emergency. The State’s decision to instruct Anand Ramlogan SC, rather than to engage substantively with the matters raised in the Pre-Action Protocol Letter, signals the seriousness with which it regards this claim. NATUC and TTCAN, who have stood with the affected workers and citizens of this country since the earliest days of the pandemic, will continue to stand with Mr. Francis as this matter is determined. The constitutional questions belong not to one widower alone but to every working citizen who was placed in the position in which Ms. Seebaran found herself.