Appeal Court hears arguments in Maha Sabha radio licence case

The Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha yesterday asked the Court of Appeal to order government to grant it a broadcast licence. It is also asking the court to declare that the maha sabha’s constitutional rights to expression, freedom of conscience and religion were infringed by the refusal of the State to grant it a radio licence. These were among some of the issues raised yesterday by Maha Sabha’s attorneys Fenton Ramsahoye SC, as he argued the case for the religious organisation before justices of appeal Rolston Nelson, Margot Warner and Alan Mendonca.

High Court judge Justice Carlton Best has already ruled that the SDMS was discriminated against. One of the issues raised was that Louis Lee Sing’s Citadel Ltd, whose application came after the SDMS’s, was granted a licence in a prompt and expeditious manner. It was alleged that Lee Sing is a supporter of the ruling PNM. Attorney Russell Martineau SC, who represents the Attorney General in the appeal, invited the court to accept that a single act cannot be accepted as a discrimination, but a series of acts can. Therefore, he suggested that the action of government to quickly grant Citadel a radio licence cannot be an act of discrimination against SDMS.

Although Justice Best had ruled in favour of SDMS, Ramsahoye, assisted by Anand Ramlogan and Nisha Persad, appealed against certain issues in his judgment, while the State cross appealed. Ram-sahoye said Justice Best should have gone further and declared the breaches of those fundamental rights. Martineau, assisted by Anmarie Rambaran and Monica Smith, contended in his counter appeal that  Best was wrong to find the State discriminated against the Maha Sabha, and he should have allowed the affidavits of Gillian Mc Intyre, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education and its then line minister Hedwige Bereaux, to form part of the proceedings. He indicated that had these affidavits been admitted into evidence, it would have brought the court up-to-date with the Maha Sabha’s application.

Ramsahoye argued that once a case of discrimination was established, then the court has jurisdiction to grant the licence. He submitted if this was not done and the matter was just sent back to the Executive, then all this would have just been a fruitless exercise. He said they do not have to prove malafide in order to establish discrimination. Martineau submitted that there were about 27 pending applications of which 13 were granted licences and, in the meantime, information was still needed with respect to the SDMS’s application.

Justice Hamel-Smith then enquired whether Citadel and the other applicants who were granted licences also had to supply this “information,” and why at this late stage a request for this information was being made. The SDMS’s application was made in 1999 and the request for certain information was made in 2003. Justice Mendonca also asked if only one licence was available whether it would have still been given to Citadel. Martineau will continue his submission today.