Industrial Court judge cries PNM victimisation

Former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj yesterday suggested to a judge that because Industrial Court Judge Sam Maharaj was once directly opposed to the PNM, Cabinet is now refusing to re-appoint him as a member of the court. 

Attorney Maharaj made the point as he persuaded Justice Amrika Tiwary-Reddy to grant Sam Maharaj leave for judicial review against Cabinet’s decision not to reappoint him as a judge of that court. Hearing of the substantive matter was also treated as urgent and was set for trial February 13. Addison Khan, president of the Industrial Court, had recommended that Sam Maharaj, a former  secretary general of All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union, be reappointed a member of the court. Cabinet refused to reappoint him, but granted him an extension of three months, which comes to an end on February 17, to complete all of his judgments. The former attorney general argued that the matter should be heard and determined before Sam Maharaj has to leave office.

Maharaj said that it is not for Cabinet, which is a political body, to undermine or subvert recommendations made by the judicial arm of the State, warning that Cabinet must never transgress on the functions of the judicial arm of the State. Having been recommended, Maharaj argued that it was Sam Maharaj’s legitimate expectation that he would be reappointed. Maharaj, who is leading attorneys Rikki Harnanan and Darrell Allahar, submitted that there was an established practice that when the president of the court recommends the reappointment of a member, that recommendation is not subverted. But he claimed that Cabinet’s refusal to reappoint Sam Maharaj was an unjustified breach of that practice, which constituted unfairness amounting to an abuse of power.

He said: “The meaning and spirit of the Constitution is that Cabinet must not trespass upon the function of the judicial arm of the State, and one function of the judicial arm in this case, is that the president makes recommendation for reappointments. It is not for Cabinet, which is a political body, to undermine or subvert these recommendations.” He indicated that he will show the Cabinet’s action to decline to reappoint Sam Maharaj to be an abuse of power as a result of an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive, he hinted, was that before Sam Maharaj became a Judge of the Industrial Court, he was actively apposed to the present political party and by extension its Cabinet. He cited several Privy Council cases to support his arguments which were made ex-parte.