Calypsonian Queen Victoria challenges TUCO over semifinal results

Veteran calypsonian Queen Victoria has issued a legal warning to the Trinbago Unified Calypsonians’ Organisation (TUCO) over its handling of her dispute of the results of the 2025 National Calypso Monarch semifinals.

She is alleging unfair treatment and procedural failures by TUCO.

In a pre-action letter sent by her attorneys Joel Roper and Skeeta John, Victoria Cooper-Rahim, who has performed under the name "Queen Victoria" for over 25 years, claims that TUCO wrongfully rejected her request for a review of her scores. She argues that TUCO’s Adjudication Review Committee improperly dismissed her dispute resolution form, despite delays that were caused by the unavailability of TUCO officials.

She placed 13th at the semifinals and did not qualify for the National Calypso Monarch finals on March 2 at Dimanche Gras.

According to the letter, the results of the semifinals were released 12 hours late, contrary to established practice. Upon reviewing the scores, the letter said Rahim noticed discrepancies, including what she believes was unfair scoring in comparison to other competitors. She sought clarification from TUCO but was allegedly denied access to the Master Score Sheet for hours.

“Upon receiving her score sheet and the Master Sheet, in assessing her results, for the first time in 12 years, she was dissatisfied with the result.” She wanted to know why TUCO did not immediately publish the results. She also complained of the criteria used to judge one of the other competitors.

“She is of the opinion that had the scoring been done fairly and justly, she would made it to the finals, even though as a reserve competitor,” the letter said.

She submitted her dispute resolution form within the next working day, but TUCO rejected it as late. Rahim’s argues that she was obstructed from timely filing due to TUCO’s own administrative failures.

“Our client was essentially obstructed in her attempt to access a resolution.”

Her attorneys have demanded that TUCO conduct an independent review of her dispute, disclose the full adjudication criteria, and explain the delay in results. They have given TUCO 24 hours to respond, warning that failure to act could lead to legal action, including an injunction.

“The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness require that the intended claimant be given a fair opportunity to present her case and challenge any decisions affecting her rights.

“The doctrine of legitimate expectation also applies, as our client reasonably expected the adjudication process to adhere to the rules outlined in TUCO’s rulebook.

“The delay caused by TUCO’s officials effectively denied her the ability to lodge her dispute resolution form in a timely manner, resulting in a prejudice to her rights,” the letter said.

It added, “Furthermore, it is a well-established principle that one cannot benefit from their own wrong. TUCO’s failure to maintain the presence of its adjudication officials during the stipulated time frame created an obstacle to our client’s timely submission of the dispute resolution form. “Consequently, the rejection of her form on the grounds of late submission is unlawful and irrational.”

The letter also proposed an out-of-court settlement and gave TUCO the option of pursuing negotiations.