Lawyers representing political activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj have made good on his promise to file a judicial review lawsuit over the Government’s move to extend the term of local government representatives.
Maharaj threatened the lawsuit in a pre-action protocol letter sent to Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, Attorney General Reginald Armour and Rural Development and Local Government Minister Faris Al-Rawi last week and filed the case yesterday, after he received a response dismissing his concerns.
In his legal correspondence, Maharaj’s lawyer Vishaal Siewsaran claimed he became concerned after Al-Rawi announced the Government’s intention to proclaim certain sections of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Local Government Reform) Act, which was passed by a simple majority in Parliament without Opposition support early this year.
The sections of the legislation identified by Al-Rawi seek to increase the terms of councillors from three years to four years. It could effectively cause the deferral of the election, which was due between December this year and March next year.
In the lawsuit, Maharaj’s lawyers are claiming the legislation should not have a retrospective effect on councillors who were elected in late 2019.
“The purported extension of their term of office by one year is based on an error of law as this can only be lawfully accomplished if the amendment was clearly and unambiguously retrospective on the expressed parliamentary understanding that the effect was to increase the term limits of the councillors and aldermen, the consequence of which, was to postpone the local government elections for one year,” they said.
Maharaj’s attorneys admitted that local government elections were deferred under the tenure of former prime minister Patrick Manning but claimed such action was not challenged, as amendments to the legislation indicating the clear intention to do so were passed by Parliament.
“Whilst the Manning administration took the bull by the horns and squarely promoted and confronted the true policy, purport and intent of these amendments, the present government is trying to secure an unlawful postponement of the Local Government Elections through the back-door by surreptitiously purporting to increase the term of office of councillors and aldermen by one year, thereby indirectly allowing the Government to postpone the elections by one year to avoid facing the electorate,” they said.
They claimed the move to proclaim the legislation was unlawful and unconstitutional, as it allegedly infringed the rule of law and the voting rights of citizens.
In his judicial review application, Maharaj’s lawyers claimed the case had to be expedited to ensure that if successful, the election is held before the end of March and incumbent local government representatives do not go past their originally elected terms.
They also sought to summarise the Government’s response to their legal threat, which led to the filing of the case.
In the response, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor denied the legislation had a retrospective effect, as it claimed that it operated prospectively by extending existing terms of office. It also claimed the Government never sought to limit its discretion on proclamation in the legislation and that Maharaj did not have a legitimate expectation that the proclamation would be delayed.
“We reject the assertion, advanced without authority, that a 4-year term of office is somehow undemocratic,” the response stated.
Through the lawsuit, Maharaj is seeking a series of declarations against the move and an order quashing it.
He is also seeking an injunction barring mayors, councillors and aldermen from acting in their offices after December 3.
Maharaj is also being represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Renuka Rambhajan, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Robert Abdool-Mitchell and Natasha Bisram.