Dr Rupert Griffith, right, and Don Sylvester, left, with their attorney, Kelvin Ramkissoon, outside the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, yesterday. PHOTO: KEITH MATTHEWS.

Justice Sebastien Ventour yesterday ruled that the suspension of three members of the national executive of the United National Congress (UNC) were illegal. But he failed to grant an injunction to Dr Rupert Griffith, Sylvester Ramquar, and Don Sylvester against future disciplinary action, saying the party was free to discipline who they want, but in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Ventour, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, had reserved his decision in late July. Appearing for the applicants were Om Lalla and Kelvin Ramkissoon, while Siparia MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar represented the 13 members of the national executive.

In giving his oral decision, Ventour said the court was not concerned with the politics of the case. He said the court was concerned about what is fair and what is right. He said that Fazal Karim, general secretary of the UNC, sent a letter dated May 5, to the three applicants, alleging that they supported the Ramjack faction of the party. From the outset, Ventour said the facts were in dispute. He paid close attention to the minutes of the meetings of the executive on May 13 and 20. The party claimed that the applicants flouted the rules of the UNC, and supported the inciting of violence against members at a party congress at Rienzi Complex, Couva, on March 22. Ventour took note of a statement made at one of the meetings by executive member, Suruj Rambachan, that the applicants were critical of the party leadership at meetings in Chaguanas West, St Augustine, Siparia, and Cumuto/Manzanilla.

Ventour said he got the distinct impression that on May 13, the executive wanted the applicants to explain their conduct. Griffith, who was present, asked for particulars of the allegations in writing, but he never received them. The judge said that at the next meeting on May 20, a video clip was shown, alleging wrongdoing on the part of the three members. “How could you do that?” the judge asked. “Natural justice demands that you put the allegations in writing. That is procedurally flawed. The applicants were never given the particulars. No court can condone such a thing.” Ventour asked, “Was that meeting on May 20, a disciplinary hearing? My understanding is that you investigate first, and then you charge if you have evidence. It was clearly a disciplinary hearing conducted on May 13 and 20. There, it was decided that the three be suspended for three months, and the matter be referred to the disciplinary committee.”

Ventour said it was not good administration to suspend the three members pending investigations. He said that as a matter of law, the national executive should not have done that. He said what happened at the two meetings, was a violation of the rights of the three applicants. “The national executive can discipline its members, but they must do it properly,” Ventour added. He said it would be good if both parties could sit and talk and resolve this matter. He granted an interim declaration to the three members, saying that their rights were infringed and they were not accorded natural justice. Ventour fixed the full trial for March 15, 2010.

Griffith responds

Dr Griffith said the applicants were happy with the outcome. “We believe the court made it clear that justice was denied. There is always room for discussion, there is one party, they are my colleagues. One cannot be treated with contempt, when all of us are working towards one end.”