Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Political and social activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has failed in his bid to challenge the decision of former House Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George to deny him permission to respond to allegedly defamatory comments made about him in Parliament.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, High Court Judge Joan Charles rejected Maharaj’s judicial review and constitutional claims.
Justice Charles ruled that she did not have the jurisdiction to review Annisette-George’s decision, as it fell under Parliament’s Standing Orders.
“The Speaker’s decision falls within the scope of Standing Order 18 and therefore falls within the scope of her privilege,” Justice Charles said.
“Accordingly, actions taken pursuant to Standing Order 18 are immune from examination even when those actions are alleged to breach Section 4(b) of the Constitution, as Parliament must be free to set its own guidelines for how legislative sessions will be carried out,” she added.
Maharaj’s lawsuit arose from his request to respond to comments made by Port-of-Spain South MP Keith Scotland, SC, while addressing the House of Representatives on April 26 last year.
Scotland claimed that the State had expended a little over $14 million defending litigation brought by Maharaj related to the public health care system. He also contended that Maharaj’s lawsuits affected health care workers, who had to take time off their jobs to respond to his “frivolous and vexatious” claims.
Shortly after the comments— which Maharaj’s lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, argued were defamatory—Maharaj wrote to Annisette-George seeking to have his position on the issue placed on the Hansard.
Maharaj sought to rely on the Standing Order that outlines the procedure for a non-member to apply to have their views included in 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 may adversely affect the individual’s reputation, whether the matter is trivial, and whether the intended submission is frivolous, vexatious, or offensive in character.
The House Speaker may also confer with the person seeking to make the submission and with the member who referred to the applicant.
In the lawsuit, Maharaj’s attorneys claimed that Annisette-George lacked lawful justification for denying his request, noting that she failed to provide any reasons for doing so. They also contended that she breached his constitutional rights to equality before the law and the protection of the law.
In response, attorneys for Annisette-George and the Office of the Attorney General argued that the decision could not be reviewed by the Court.
Upholding that submission, Justice Charles said: “I agree that the Speaker’s decision is covered by the parliamentary privilege of exclusive control over its internal affairs and freedom of speech.”
She also noted that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on and interpret the Standing Orders.
“The Courts may determine if the privilege claimed is necessary for the proper functioning of the Legislature, but they do not have the power to review the rightness or wrongness of a particular decision made pursuant to the privilege,” Justice Charles said.
Balgobin-Maharaj was also represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Aasha Ramdlal, Natasha Bisram, and Vishaal Siewsaran.
Annisette-George was represented by Deborah Peake, SC, Ravi Heffes-Doon, Avion Romain, and Nikita Ali.
The AG’s Office was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, Nicol Yee Fung, Murvani Ojah Maharaj, Radha Sookdeo, and Abigail Bristo.
