Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:15 hours 19 min ago
Minister breaches Freedom of Information Act:
Law Lords: Saith guilty of delay
Published: 13 Oct 2009
Lenny Saith
After succeeding before the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Trinidad, former Minister of Public Administration Dr Lenny Saith went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to settle a judicial review matter in favour of Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma. It was a rare move in the Privy Council which had set yesterday for the hearing of Sharma’s appeal. But the solicitors, acting for the Minister, sent a letter to Sharma’s attorneys on September 9, seeking resolution of the matter and asking for it to be brought to an end. A consent order was agreed and it was approved by Lords Rodger, Walker and Mance.
The Lords considered the matter on October 8 and allowed the appeal. The order, which was released yesterday, stated:
The Board declares that the Minister acted in breach of Section 40(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in that the reports for 2001-2007 were not laid before Parliament within a reasonable time; The Board orders that the respondent (Minister) should lay the outstanding report for 2008 before Parliament as soon as possible and, in any event, not later than December 31, 2009; The Board directs that, in the event of the Minister failing to produce the report by the due date, any proceedings for enforcement of the Board’s order should be pursued before the High Court (in Trinidad).
Sir Fenton Ramsahoye, SC and Anand Ramlogan, instructed by Asal Vakilzadeh, appeared for Sharma, while James Guthrie, QC, and Lyndsey Murray, instructed by John Almeida, represented Saith. Ramlogan, when contacted in London last night, said: “This is a resounding victory because it is a case I lost in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. “The State objected to the grant of leave to allow this case to go to the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal “reluctantly” granted leave to go to the Privy Council and described it as “a marginal case for permission to appeal.” Ramlogan said the Government frustrated and undermined the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to table annual reports in Parliament to let the population know the extent of non-compliance by public bodies.
The FOIA, he said, was a powerful weapon in the hands of citizens which could be used to ensure transparency and fairness in the decision-making process. On March 6, 2006, Justice Vasheist Kokaram, then a temporary judge, dismissed Sharma’s judicial review case. Sharma went to the Court of Appeal. On June 9, 2008, the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Roger Hamel-Smith, Wendell Kangaloo and Allan Mendonca, dismissed his appeal and ordered him to pay costs. As Sharma was preparing for the appeal in London, the Minister’s English’s solicitor, Charles Russell, by letter dated September 9, offered to settle the matter by agreeing to the declarations granted and the payment of costs.
The T&T Guardian was informed that hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs would be paid out by the Attorney General’s office. This was a case in which Sharma, a UNC MP, complained that the annual reports of the FOIA were not being laid in Parliament, despite queries to the relevant Minister. After numerous letters to Saith, who was then the Minister of Public Administration, Sharma filed for judicial review on June 8, 2005. In the High Court, the judge said Sharma had no locus, that there was no breach of Section 40(1) of the Act, and even if Sharma had locus, he was not entitled to relief. The Court of Appeal agreed.
TEAM WORK
TEAM WORK -
Unity is strength, A UNC MP and a COP lawyer, defeats a PNM Minister need I say more. All Yuh know what all yuh have to do. All Yuh playing the fool. The country can’t take it no more.
"But the solicitors, acting
"But the solicitors, acting for the Minister, sent a letter to Sharma’s attorneys on September 9, seeking resolution of the matter and asking for it to be brought to an end."
Let me see if I got this right. The Minister Saith wins in both the High Court and the Appeal Court and when he comes up before the Privy Council he concedes? I believe a can of worms has opened for the PNM.
The Minister, by conceding admits that by not tabling the FOIA reports in parliament he was doing something wrong - that he blatantly broke the law. What gall, what disrespect, what contempt for the public! For eight years the PNM has been covering up their dirty trails of corruption, nepotism and malfeasance by hiding the reports of the FOIA.
I am now forced to question what goes on in our local courts. Four of our learned judges, thrashed Shrama's case and give judgements in favour of Minister Saith. Then the Court of appeal "reluctantly" grants permission to appeal on the basis that there is "a marginal case" for appeal. Then the Minister concedes?Seems like somebody didnot want to get a good tongue lashing from the Privy Council. I am wondering if our courts are deliberately biased towards the government or if the judges are incompetent? I really didnot want to go there, but the question has to be asked.
This case also shows why we need the Privy Council and not the CCJ. Can you imagine the outcome of cases at a CCJ fitted with pro-government judges? The public will easily lose many of it's rights.
Lenny Saith should be fired immediately. However the PM will see that his breaking of the law is not as bad as the behaviour of Wajank Rowley, so I guess he stays on in our face.
This is such a mess! I'm lost for words, I really don't know how to express my outrage. Shame on Minister Saith! Shame on the PNM! Shame on the self-righteous Patrick Manning!
The vengence of the people awaits!
YUH KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE
YUH KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED -
If there was no Privy Council.
This is why they doh want
This is why they doh want the PC and they all in favor of the CCJ.
Here's the case folks:
Here's the case folks: -
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/Manning%20v%20Sharma%20Reasons...
Read it before they start to spin it!
Here is an interesting
Here is an interesting segment from the Privy Council's decision :
"It is now over eight years since Part II of the 1999 Act came into effect and, if the circumstances deposed to by Mr Sharma are unchanged, there has been a continued flouting by the executive of the will of the legislature so far as implementation of Part II of the Act is concerned".
Bravo to this latest judgement. Minister Saith now has 'egg on his face'. Mr. Sharma, though submitting his original appeal late, was frustrated at every turn by the lack of compliance of various bodies. A patent waste of taxperers' funds.
Having said that, there seems to be continued 'flouting by the executive (Government)' on many other fronts. However, it is now 4 years on, and lack of attention by this government to transparency and accountability has been exposed.
Can UDECOTT be far behind ?
....it appears at times that
....it appears at times that the only means of obtaining justice in T&T, is the Privy Council....
Yes long may the Privy
Yes long may the Privy Council arbitrate for the Commonwealth. Its a great body of lawyers.
"Law Lords: Saith guilty of
"Law Lords: Saith guilty of delay"
"The T&T Guardian was informed that hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs would be paid out by the Attorney General’s office."
It is time that ministers who deliberately seek to frustrate the public's efforts to seek information and transparency be made liable for these costly vexatious legal obstructions.
If the Government is so confident in the local courts and local lawyers, why do they continue to engage expensive English QCs wnen we see two local lawyers on the opposite side representing the aggrieved all the way up to the Privy Council?
The Government has just succeeded in providing one more reason to the already long and growing list of reasons for the retention of the Privy Council as the country's final court of appeal.
The Government and its agents do themselves no favours in continuing to suppress the people's will and to practise discrimination, deliberately or unwittingly, and to continue to attempt to justify their misbehaviour before the courts at tremendous costs to the taxpayer.
The Prince, Well
The Prince, Well Said:-
Don't think that there is anything further for me to add;
except perhaps sign that new Draft Bill we will be presenting in the House for personally billing errant politicians for their mis-deeds that's causing us to pay for services not warranted.
Substantive reason for us to hold fast to the Privy Council, until and unless we can guarantee 'fair treatment' in T&T, and through the CCJ.
Gardenia
Thanks, Gardenia. And I
Thanks, Gardenia. And I agree with your additional remarks.
I agree too!
I agree too!
except perhaps sign that new Draft Bill we will be presenting in the House for personally billing errant politicians for their mis-deeds that's causing us to pay for services not warranted.
The sooner we start making these Ministers personally accountable for their own failings whilst in the execution of their Office, the chances are they will 'buck up and fly right'. (And then some of them want to say there is no extra money for the Judiciary...)
La Diva
La Diva and Gardenia I agree
La Diva and Gardenia I agree totally with what you said but I have one question...even if these politicians are personally accountable for their failings or misdeeds how would we know for sure where the money coming from?
The amount ah boball goin on it go still be we paying and they go spin it to look like is dem, remember these people is professional theives and doctors, ah mean spin doctors.
THE PNM PROPAGANDA MACHINE
THE PNM PROPAGANDA MACHINE -
The PNM propaganda machine would tell us we should not have the Privy council, we relying on white foreigners, we do not have confidence in ourselves. They somehow sit by silently while a white foreigner Hart thieving out we money, what hypocrisy and double-standards.