Former prime minister Ralph Gonsalves says the 2026 budget estimates shows an allocation of $1.5 million to the Office of the Prime Minister specifically to “undertake major works and procure furnishings, furniture, fix fittings and equipment at the residence of the prime minister”.
The opposition characterizes this amount as effectively building “a new house” given the size of the figure. In addition to the renovation costs, the budget includes a new item of $56,000 for “rental of assets”. This is presumed according to Gonsalves to cover the rent for the Prime Minister’s temporary accommodation while the official residence is being refurbished.
The central criticism is that the administration is prioritizing the “comfort” of the Prime Minister over the needs of the poor during a deficit budget. Camilo Gonsalves highlights that while $1.5 million is allocated for the Prime Minister’s single residence, only $150,000 is allocated for “informal human settlements” to assist poor people with roads, drains, and land surveys across the entire country.
Gonsalves noted that when combined with a $600,000 allocation for a new vehicle fleet (which they estimate has a real market value of over $1.3 million if duty were included) and stated that the total allocated for the Prime Minister’s personal use and comfort approaches $2.1 to $2.8 million.
Camilo Gonsalves argues that running a historic current account deficit of $105.5 million should require cutting “nice-to-haves,” yet the government chose to prioritize expensive renovations and vehicles in their first year and accuses the new administration of hypocrisy based on their past rhetoric while in opposition.
Gonsalves notes that when his administration previously spent small amounts (e.g., $40,000 to $60,000) on repairs or security lights, the then-opposition (now government) criticized it as treating the residence like a “palace” or “Saddam’s palace”. He asserts that he lived in the residence until November of the previous year and it was “comfortable” and “livable,” requiring only minor repairs to one side of the roof, rather than a $1.5 million overhaul.
The opposition raised concerns regarding the execution of these renovations and the associated temporary housing.
Questions were raised about the transparency of the $56,000 rental arrangement, specifically regarding the lack of a registered contract for the government-funded lease. There are insinuations of political favoritism regarding who will perform the renovations.
Gonsalves mentioned that a “gentleman with tape measures” had already been to the property and suggested a “strong connection” exists between that contractor and the sitting government. He predicted that the cost might eventually exceed $1.5 million through supplementary estimates once contractors become involved.