Political and social activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has threatened to sue House Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George for refusing to allow him to respond to alleged defamatory comments made against him in Parliament.
Maharaj’s lawyers led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, of Freedom Law Chambers, made the legal threat in a pre-action protocol letter sent to Annisette-George, last Wednesday.
In the correspondence, obtained by Guardian Media, attorney Vishaal Siewsaran claimed that her decision to blank his client’s request to have his response to the comments on the Parliamentary record was grossly unfair and unjust.
Siewsaran claimed that on April 26, Port-of-Spain South MP Keith Scotland, who is an attorney, launched a “scathing and malicious attack” on Maharaj while addressing the House of Representatives.
Scotland claimed that the State had expended a little over $14 million in defending litigation from Maharaj over the health care system. He also contended that Maharaj’s lawsuit affected healthcare workers, who had to take time off their jobs to respond to his “frivolous and vexatious” claims.
Siewsaran said: “These statements amount to a malicious falsehood and a defamatory attack against the character and reputation of Mr Maharaj, who is a well-known public-spirited activist who has held the government to account and championed the cause for greater transparency, accountability and good governance in the Republic of T&T.”
He claimed that Maharaj wrote to Annisette-George seeking to place his position on the issue on the Hansard on May 3.
In his request, Maharaj pointed out that he never filed the cases ascribed to him by Scotland.
He noted that he filed a handful of cases under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the disclosure of the legal fees paid by regional health authorities to defend medical negligence cases.
He claimed that the cases were dealt with by the authorities’ Legal and Accounting departments and not doctors and nurses as alleged by Scotland.
Attached to the correspondence were two letters sent by Clerk of the House Brian Caesar on May 10 and 16, in which he communicated Anisette-George’s decision to refuse approval.
Siewsaran referred to Order 18 of the House of Representatives Standing Orders, which states the procedure for a non-member to apply to have their views placed on the Parliamentary record if they claim that their personal or professional reputation was tarnished during a previous debate.
The order states that in deciding whether to grant a request, the House Speaker must consider the extent to which the reference is capable of adversely affecting the individual’s reputation, whether the matter is trivial, and whether their intended submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character.
“It is clear that the intention and purpose of Standing Order 18 is to give aggrieved citizens who are not members of Parliament the opportunity to respond to false and defamatory statements or unfair political attacks that impugn their character and reputation,” he said.
Noting that Annisette-George did not provide any reasons for her decision, Siewsaran suggested there was no lawful justification.
“You have therefore abused your discretion by adopting an approach which not only denies our client the right of reply, but furthermore, demonstrates that you are content to allow the Minister’s falsehoods to remain on the Hansard without refutation or correction,” he said.
Siewsaran referred to the fact that Annisette-George’s husband Newman George was appointed as Director of the Heritage Petroleum Company, Chairman of Paria Fuel Trading Company, and Chairman of the Guaracara Refining Company by the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM).
“Your decision to refuse our client a right to reply reeks of political bias and bad faith. It leads to the inescapable and irresistible inference that you have denied our client of this right of reply in order to protect a PNM Member of Parliament with whom you share a common political affiliation despite the fact that he has presented false and defamatory information with reference to our client to the Parliament,” he added.
Siewsaran suggested that Annisette-George’s handling of the request breached Maharaj’s constitutional rights to protection of the law and freedom of political expression.
Annisette-George was given 30 days in which to respond before a lawsuit is filed over the issue.