Trinidad and Tobago: LGBT+ Individuals and HIV/AIDS — Country Conditions

This expert witness report examines country conditions for LGBT+ individuals living with or at risk of HIV/AIDS in Trinidad and Tobago, including the recriminalisation of same-sex conduct in March 2025, the absence of anti-discrimination protections, documented violence, and structural barriers to healthcare access. Prepared for asylum and immigration proceedings by Expert Witness | Country Expert Witness Reports | The Human Rights.

1. Introduction

Trinidad and Tobago is a twin-island republic situated in the southern Caribbean, with a population of approximately 1.5 million. It is classified as a high-income developing economy and is rated ‘Free’ by Freedom House with an overall score of 82/100.

This report examines the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBT+) individuals in Trinidad and Tobago, with particular focus on the legal criminalisation of same-sex conduct, the absence of anti-discrimination protections, the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS upon gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), and the structural barriers that prevent LGBT+ individuals from accessing healthcare and state protection. The report is prepared for the purposes of asylum and immigration proceedings and reflects the country conditions as of March 2026.

The analysis draws on primary legislation, court decisions, and reports by Human Rights Watch, CAISO (Sex and Gender Justice), UNAIDS, the US Department of State, Freedom House, ILGA World, and the OutRight International Action Center, as well as peer-reviewed medical literature.

2. Legal Framework: Criminalisation of Same-Sex Conduct

The principal legislative instruments criminalising same-sex conduct in Trinidad and Tobago are sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act (Chapter 11:28) (as amended). Section 13 criminalises ‘buggery’, defined as ‘sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person’. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. The section provides no exception for consenting adults in private.

Section 16 criminalises ‘serious indecency’, defined as acts other than sexual intercourse involving the use of genital organs for sexual arousal. The provision expressly exempts married couples and consenting heterosexual adults acting in private, but contains no equivalent exemption for same-sex couples. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. In practical terms, section 16 criminalises oral sex and analogous acts between persons of the same sex.

Section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago 1976 contains a ‘savings clause’, a constitutional provision inherited from the colonial framework, which shields pre-independence legislation from challenge on human rights grounds. This clause has proven to be the decisive obstacle to successful constitutional litigation aimed at overturning the criminalisation of same-sex conduct.

3. The Decriminalisation and Recriminalisation Timeline (2018–2025)

In 2017, Jason Jones, a UK-based Trinidadian LGBT+ activist, filed a constitutional challenge before the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago seeking declarations that sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act were null and void. On 12 April 2018, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled in favour of Mr Jones, declaring both provisions unconstitutional as infringements of the rights of LGBT+ citizens to dignity, equality, and freedom of expression. The ruling was widely welcomed by international human rights organisations.

Human Rights Watch described the 2018 ruling as ‘a remarkable victory for the rights of LGBT+ people in Trinidad and Tobago’. The Attorney General immediately announced an appeal, and the provisions were not formally repealed by Parliament during the intervening period.

On 25 March 2025, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, in the matter of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Jason Jones, reversed the 2018 High Court ruling by a majority of 2 to 1. Justices Nolan Bereaux and Charmaine Pemberton held that sections 13 and 16 constituted ‘saved law’ within the meaning of section 6 of the Constitution and were therefore shielded from constitutional challenge. Critically, the majority itself acknowledged that the impugned laws ‘are not reasonably justifiable in a society that has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual’ but concluded that the savings clause precluded the court from granting relief.

Justice Vasheist Kokaram dissented, questioning why ‘this unconstitutional law [is] still being retained by a modern republic’ and finding that the state’s appeal should have been dismissed. OutRight International condemned the ruling as reversing progress on LGBT+ people’s rights, while CIVICUS Monitor described it as ‘a backward step [that] recriminalises LGBTQI+ lives’.

As a result of the Court of Appeal decision, Trinidad and Tobago reverted to having active criminal prohibitions on same-sex intimacy. Trinidad and Tobago rejoined the list of approximately 66 countries worldwide that criminalise consensual same-sex conduct. Jason Jones has announced an intention to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London, which is Trinidad and Tobago’s final appellate court. However, analysts note that the JCPC has previously upheld savings clauses in comparable Caribbean jurisdictions, and any appeal is likely to take several years to conclude.

4. Absence of Anti-Discrimination Protections

The Equal Opportunity Act 2000 (Chapter 22:03) is the primary anti-discrimination legislation in Trinidad and Tobago. It prohibits discrimination in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, and accommodation. The seven protected grounds are: status (meaning race, ethnicity, religion, marital status, origin, disability, and sex). Critically, the Act explicitly excludes sexual orientation from its definition of ‘sex’, stating that ‘sex’ ‘does not include sexual preference or orientation’. Gender identity is wholly absent from the Act.

As a consequence, there is no legal protection in Trinidad and Tobago against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity in any domain — whether in employment, housing, education, or service provision. An employer may lawfully dismiss an employee upon discovering or suspecting that they are LGBT+. A landlord may lawfully refuse to rent accommodation on the same grounds. The Equal Opportunity Commission has itself called publicly for the Act to be amended to include sexual orientation, but as of March 2026 no legislative amendment has been enacted.

Beyond the Equal Opportunity Act, Trinidad and Tobago has no legislation banning conversion therapy. There is no legal recognition of same-sex partnerships or civil unions. Same-sex couples are prohibited from adopting children. There is no legal mechanism to change gender markers on identity documents.

CAISO: Sex and Gender Justice, the principal LGBT+ civil society organisation in Trinidad and Tobago, has documented that the absence of legal recognition means LGBT+ individuals lack the legal standing to enforce even basic civil rights protections that are available to heterosexual Trinidadians. In 2024, CAISO documented that 50% of those who reported workplace discrimination experienced unfair termination, and 75% experienced workplace harassment. None sought legal redress, due to financial barriers or concerns about their immigration or social status.

5. Documented Violence, Harassment, and Social Conditions

CAISO: Sex and Gender Justice operates the Wholeness and Justice Programme, which provides direct psychosocial, legal, and practical support services to LGBT+ individuals in Trinidad and Tobago. The Programme’s Insights Reports for 2023 and 2024 constitute the most systematic available data on the lived experiences of LGBT+ individuals in the country.

The 2023 Insights Report documented that the Programme assisted 30 new clients and continued services for 26 ongoing clients from the previous year. New clients presented with experiences of discrimination and harassment, family violence, and physical assault. Over 50% of all 2023 clients were gender-diverse. Over 70% of clients reporting family violence had been subjected to verbal and emotional abuse, including name-calling, humiliation, intimidation, threats to their lives, threats to be disowned or displaced from the family home, and confinement within the home.

The 2024 Insights Report found that the most prevalent issues were domestic violence (44% of clients), harassment and assault (25%), and employment-related issues (9%). The forms of domestic violence documented included harassment, displacement, physical abuse, verbal abuse, and financial abuse. CAISO’s Programme Officer stated that the report ‘continues to illustrate the pervasive nature of state neglect and its failure to acknowledge the realities of sexual diversity’.

The absence of legal anti-discrimination protections means that individuals who experience violence or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity have no specific legal remedy available to them. While common law offences such as assault and harassment in principle apply equally to all persons, the practical barriers to accessing state protection are substantial.

Reports by CAISO and international human rights bodies consistently note that LGBT+ individuals in Trinidad and Tobago distrust the police as an institution. This is compounded by the known prevalence of corruption within the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), documented by Freedom House, and the absence of any specialised training for police officers in handling complaints involving sexual orientation or gender identity.

6. HIV/AIDS: Prevalence and the Disproportionate Impact on LGBT+ Individuals

Trinidad and Tobago has the second-highest number of HIV cases among English-speaking Caribbean island states. General adult HIV prevalence is approximately 1.1% according to UNAIDS data, translating to approximately 11,000 adults and children living with HIV. As of 2024, prenatal HIV prevalence had reached or exceeded 2%, placing Trinidad and Tobago among eight Caribbean countries with elevated prenatal prevalence.

Despite the provision of antiretroviral therapy free of charge to citizens, only 47% of all people living with HIV in Trinidad and Tobago achieve viral suppression — a figure substantially below the UNAIDS 95-95-95 target of 95% of PLHIV being virally suppressed by 2025.

HIV prevalence among MSM in Trinidad and Tobago is estimated at between 20% and 32% — between 18 and 29 times the rate of the general population. MSM account for 23% of all HIV cases across the Caribbean region. Among persons living with HIV (PLHIV) at a major treatment centre in Trinidad and Tobago, 8.2% identified as homosexual or bisexual, and 15.9% of male patients identified as MSM or bisexual.

A peer-reviewed study of 9,629 PLHIV at the principal HIV treatment centre in Trinidad and Tobago, covering data from 2016 to 2018, found that MSM achieved viral suppression at a significantly lower rate (65.4%) compared to heterosexual patients (72.5%). This differential persists despite the availability of free antiretroviral therapy and indicates the operation of structural barriers to healthcare engagement beyond mere cost.

The relationship between criminalisation of same-sex conduct and worse HIV outcomes is well-established in the international public health literature. A 2021 study by Kavanagh and colleagues found that countries criminalising same-sex relations demonstrate viral suppression rates 8.1 percentage points lower than non-criminalising countries, after adjusting for other variables.

The UNAIDS 2024 Global AIDS Update reported that HIV prevalence among gay men and other MSM in countries that criminalise same-sex conduct is five times higher than in non-criminalising settings. Where there have been recent prosecutions under criminalising laws, HIV prevalence among MSM is twelve times higher than in countries without prosecutions. UNAIDS has directly linked the March 2025 recriminalisation in Trinidad and Tobago to increased HIV risk, stating that ‘decriminalisation of LGBTQ+ people saves lives’.

The mechanisms by which criminalisation worsens HIV outcomes include: avoidance of HIV testing services due to fear of disclosure to healthcare providers; reluctance to disclose sexual orientation or behaviour when accessing antiretroviral treatment; avoidance of sexual health clinics; and the psychosocial impact of criminalisation on mental health, which undermines treatment adherence.

7. Healthcare Access for LGBT+ Individuals in Trinidad and Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago operates a dual public-private healthcare system. The Regional Health Authorities Act 1994 established Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) as autonomous bodies responsible for delivering primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare. For Trinidad and Tobago citizens, public healthcare is provided free of charge at all levels, and the Chronic Disease Assistance Programme (CDAP) provides free prescription drugs at over 250 pharmacies nationwide.

Healthcare access for non-nationals is substantially limited. HIV/AIDS medication is not free for non-nationals. Treatment for cancer, diabetes, asthma, cardiac conditions, and arthritis is similarly not covered under the free public healthcare system for non-nationals. Non-nationals may access HIV testing and treatment through the Family Planning Association of Trinidad and Tobago at a reduced fee. Refugees and asylum seekers may access limited assistance through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Trinidad and Tobago and through the non-governmental organisation Living Water Community.

Even for citizens, access to healthcare is compromised for LGBT+ individuals by stigma and discrimination within the health system. Research consistently identifies fear of disclosure of sexual orientation to healthcare providers, fear of judgement or breach of confidentiality, and experiences of hostile or discriminatory treatment by health workers as significant barriers to care. These barriers are exacerbated by the 2025 recriminalisation, which creates a legal context that reinforces social stigma and discourages healthcare-seeking behaviour.

The low viral suppression rates among MSM in Trinidad and Tobago — despite free antiretroviral therapy being available — are consistent with the operation of these structural barriers. The fact that MSM suppression rates (65.4%) are lower than heterosexual rates (72.5%) at the same treatment facility, controlling for cost, strongly suggests that non-financial barriers are operating to reduce treatment engagement among LGBT+ individuals.

8. Analytical Assessment

The central feature of the Trinidad and Tobago country context is the contradiction between formal democratic governance and the continuing legal and social vulnerability of LGBT+ individuals. The state is classified as free and maintains functioning institutions, yet those institutions continue to uphold a legal framework that criminalises consensual same-sex intimacy and denies LGBT+ persons any explicit protection against discrimination. The March 2025 Court of Appeal judgment is especially significant because it did not merely preserve an outdated law in technical terms, it actively restored criminal liability for same-sex intimacy while acknowledging that the impugned provisions were inconsistent with a society that properly respects individual rights and freedoms. In practical terms, this means that LGBT+ people in Trinidad and Tobago remain exposed to a state-sanctioned framework of stigma, even where prosecution may not be frequent. That framework legitimises social hostility, reinforces family and workplace abuse, and undermines confidence in the availability of state protection.

The absence of anti-discrimination protections is not a secondary issue but a structural one. Because sexual orientation and gender identity are excluded from the main equality legislation, LGBT+ individuals who are dismissed from employment, refused housing, harassed in education, or denied services have no dedicated legal remedy. This legal vacuum is compounded by evidence from CAISO showing that victims of workplace discrimination, domestic violence, harassment, and assault frequently do not seek redress because of financial barriers, distrust of institutions, or fear of further exposure. The result is a situation in which formal citizenship and democratic rights do not translate into effective protection for LGBT+ persons in their daily lives. In my opinion, this gap between constitutional democracy and lived exclusion is one of the most important features of the country conditions evidence.

The HIV evidence materially strengthens this assessment. Trinidad and Tobago is not simply a country with a general HIV burden, it is a country in which gay men and other MSM bear a sharply disproportionate share of that burden while achieving worse treatment outcomes than heterosexual patients even within the same treatment setting. That disparity strongly suggests the operation of structural stigma rather than purely economic barriers. The recriminalisation of same-sex conduct in 2025 is likely to deepen those harms by increasing fear of disclosure, discouraging engagement with sexual health services, and reinforcing the association between LGBT+ identity and criminality. In this respect, the public health evidence and the human rights evidence point in the same direction: criminalisation is not symbolic, but has concrete consequences for safety, dignity, and access to life-preserving healthcare.

Taken as a whole, the evidence indicates that LGBT+ individuals in Trinidad and Tobago face a cumulative pattern of vulnerability arising from criminalisation, legal exclusion, social hostility, family violence, and barriers to healthcare and police protection. The state is not comparable to jurisdictions where same-sex conduct is decriminalised but social prejudice persists informally. Here, the law itself contributes to the hostile environment. If the Tribunal accepts the evidence, including from the country material cited above, then in my opinion LGBT+ individuals, particularly those who are visibly gender-diverse, openly same-sex attracted, or living with HIV, may face a level of discrimination, exclusion, and mistreatment that is serious, persistent, and in some cases protection-relevant.

Sources