JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, April 5, 2025

Appeal Court finds TSTT subject to Freedom of Information Act requests

by

Derek Achong
980 days ago
20220729
TSTT House, Port-of-Spain.

TSTT House, Port-of-Spain.

The Court of Ap­peal has ruled that the Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions Ser­vices of Trinidad and To­ba­go (TSTT) is sub­ject to the pro­vi­sions of the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act (FOIA).

De­liv­er­ing a judge­ment yes­ter­day, Ap­pel­late Judges Al­ice Yorke-Soo Hon, Gre­go­ry Smith and Mal­colm Holdip dis­missed TSTT’s ap­peal over the de­ci­sion of a High Court Judge to up­hold a law­suit from po­lit­i­cal and so­cial ac­tivist Ravi Bal­go­b­in Ma­haraj on the is­sue.

Ma­haraj brought the law­suit in Feb­ru­ary 2017 af­ter the telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions provider re­fused his re­quest un­der the FOIA to dis­close in­for­ma­tion on its man­age­ment struc­ture, salaries and its share­hold­er agree­ment.

Ma­haraj claimed that he was in­ter­est­ed in the in­for­ma­tion as TSTT is in­di­rect­ly fund­ed by tax­pay­ers, who have a vest­ed in­ter­est in its fi­nan­cial vi­a­bil­i­ty.

High Court Judge David Har­ris ini­tial­ly re­fused Ma­haraj leave to pur­sue the ju­di­cial re­view claim be­fore an­oth­er pan­el of the Ap­peal Court re­versed his de­ci­sion.

In De­cem­ber 2018, Jus­tice Har­ris up­held Ma­haraj’s law­suit, as he ruled that TSTT is a pub­lic au­thor­i­ty which is sub­ject to the pro­vi­sions of the leg­is­la­tion, which gives cit­i­zens the right to re­quest in­for­ma­tion from pub­lic au­thor­i­ties and State com­pa­nies.

TSTT was or­dered to re­con­sid­er Ma­haraj’s dis­clo­sure re­quest in light of the judge­ment, but the com­pa­ny ap­pealed.

To de­cide the case, the ap­peal pan­el had to con­sid­er TSTT’s cor­po­rate his­to­ry.

The com­pa­ny was formed in 1991 by the merg­er of the T&T Tele­phone Com­pa­ny (TEL­CO) and T&T Ex­ter­nal Com­mu­ni­ca­tions (TEX­TEL). The Gov­ern­ment held a 51 per cent stake while Ca­ble and Wire­less held the re­main­der.

In 2000, the Gov­ern­ment as­signed its stake in TSTT to Na­tion­al En­ter­pris­es Lim­it­ed (NEL), which al­so holds its stakes in oth­er lo­cal com­pa­nies such as Na­tion­al Flour Mills (NFM).

In the ap­peal, Ma­haraj’s lawyer Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, point­ed out that in 2014, the Gov­ern­ment was es­sen­tial­ly giv­en to­tal con­trol of TSTT, as the Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions Au­thor­i­ty of T&T (TATT) sus­pend­ed the rights of Ca­ble and Wire­less af­ter it ac­quired Colum­bus In­ter­na­tion­al Inc, the par­ent com­pa­ny of Colum­bus Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Lim­it­ed, which trades as TSTT’s com­peti­tor Flow.

Ca­ble and Wire­less was al­so or­dered to re­move its di­rec­tors from TSTT’s board un­til it di­vest­ed its share­hold­ing.

In the judge­ment, Jus­tice Smith not­ed that in 2013, an­oth­er judge had con­sid­ered whether the Gov­ern­ment ef­fec­tive­ly con­trolled TSTT, as the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance con­trols its 66 per cent stake in NEL and ruled that it did not.

While Jus­tice Smith con­sid­ered Ram­lo­gan’s point on the TATT’s sus­pen­sion, he ruled that it did not prove that the Gov­ern­ment was in con­trol, as there was no ev­i­dence that NEL was an in­ter­me­di­ary of the Gov­ern­ment.

How­ev­er, Jus­tice Smith up­held Ma­haraj’s case based on Ram­lo­gan’s sub­mis­sion that a no­ti­fi­ca­tion in the Gazette from 2020 an­nounced that Cab­i­net had ap­proved the ap­point­ment of Sean Roach as TSTT chair­man and oth­er Gov­ern­ment di­rec­tors.

He said al­though the no­ti­fi­ca­tion was not con­sid­ered by Jus­tice Har­ris, it could not be ig­nored by him and his col­leagues, as the Gazette served as of­fi­cial no­ti­fi­ca­tion on be­half of the State.

“If the in­for­ma­tion in the Gazette is ig­nored, our analy­sis of who is in ef­fec­tive con­trol of TSTT would pro­duce a high­ly ar­ti­fi­cial re­sult. In fact, it would be a re­sult that would fly in the face of com­mon sense,” he said.

De­spite his rul­ing in the case, Jus­tice Smith not­ed that TSTT’s clas­si­fi­ca­tion as a pub­lic au­thor­i­ty in terms of the FOIA could change in the fu­ture if the Gov­ern­ment was to ei­ther di­vest it­self of all or a greater part of its ma­jor­i­ty share­hold­ing or cede its pow­er to ap­point the com­pa­ny’s board.

Ma­haraj was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Jayan­ti Lutch­me­di­al, Chelsea Stew­art, Alana Ram­baran and Dr Che Din­di­al.

Dr Claude Den­bow, Don­na Den­bow and Jerome Ra­j­coomar rep­re­sent­ed TSTT.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored