THE RECENT ruling by Barbados High Court Justice Michelle Weekes in a judicial review case brought on behalf of a group of students challenging the format of the 2020 exams is unsurprising, given the legislative framework governing the establishment and functioning of the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC).

The judge essentially reminded all stakeholders that CXC is immune from any form of legal action since it essentially qualifies as an inter-governmental organisation. It is the examination body that administers a range of high-stakes testing in 16 English-speaking Commonwealth countries and territories, having replaced the England-based General Certificate of Education. It is a creature of the 1973 treaty that established the Caribbean Community (Caricom) and represents the proud personifications of regional integration.

What is however disturbing is that there was a legal challenge in the first place. This challenge represented yet another expression of deep-seated dissatisfaction and discontent that has been growing in the region over the years regarding the operations and manifestations of the council in the execution of its regional mandate.

Governed by representatives of the 16 participating territories as well as the Universities of the West Indies and Guyana, the council was established in 1972 under agreement by participating governments in the Caribbean Community to conduct such examinations as it may think appropriate, and award certificates and diplomas on the results of any such examinations conducted.

In TT, Act 13 of 1987 (Caribbean Examinations Council Act) and Act 21 of 2006 (CXC Privileges and Immunities Act) provide for the protection of the integrity of examinations held by the council.

The council is thus of, for and by its participating territories, with attendant accountability contained therein. However, over the past decade there have been several instances where stakeholders raised serious questions about the way the council has been executing its mandate, its responsiveness to calls for change and clarity regarding its conduct of these high-stakes assessments.

The immunity afforded the council to ensure its integrity seems to be a double-edged sword - a facade to avoid true accountability to the people it serves. The council is now perceived by many as a law onto itself, with stakeholders having little or no course for redress, having to accept whatever the council dishes out. The council has a history of being unrepentant and defiant in the face of glaring blunders, notwithstanding the significant impact of its decisions on the lives and futures of students.

More disturbing is the apparent reluctance of regional governments to either intervene to allay the fears and concerns being expressed by stakeholders or introduce structures to ensure greater levels of accountability and transparency in the operations of the council.

Regional institutions cannot exist in environments where doubts and aspersions are being cast on its operations. Confidence and trust in the