State attorney rebukes Club Pigeon Point

STATE ATTORNEY Dr Lloyd Barnett yesterday said that the claims made by Club Pigeon Point that they were denied due process, were “factually incorrect.” Dr Barnett made this remark while presenting submissions before High Court Judge Mira Dean-Amorer in the Port-of-Spain Third Civil Court, in response to Club Pigeon Point’s attorney Dr Fenton Ramsahoye. Dr Ramsahoye, Rikki Harnanan and Adrian Byrne are representing Robinson Crusoe Limited, operators of Club Pigeon Point and subsidiary of ANSA McAl, while Dr Barnett, Karen Fournillier, Terrance Thorne and John Jeremie, instructed by Rohana Hosein are representing the State. In his submission, Dr Barnett explained that Club Pigeon Point has had considerable opportunity to be heard on the issue, prior to the public notice for compulsory acquisition of the beach front property.

He pointed out that protracted negotiations had taken place between the Tobago House of Assembly and Club Pigeon Point. These negotiations, he explained, went on for two years under the present administration and prior to that, were held with the previous THA administration. He also noted that there were no constitutional rights to a perpetual negotiation, and explained that even at this stage, Club Pigeon Point could continue to make submissions to the Government. “There is nothing to prevent them from continuing to make submissions to the Prime Minister, the Parliament or any other authority who possess constitutional responsibility on the subject,” explained Dr Barnett. On the issue of the complaints made by Club Pigeon Point and the allegations of irrationality, breach of natural justice and excess of jurisdiction, Dr Barnett said that these were all “premature and speculative.”

He noted that “it is clear that the respect of any such complaints by Club Pigeon Point has a common law remedy by way of judicial review, if they can establish any such grounds.” Dr Barnett told the court that the complaints being made concerning the “threat” of losing the land through compulsory acquisition by the State, has no basis on any branch of public law. He explained that the State has the rights to acquire land, vessel etc for public purpose once the applicant is adequately compensated. Asked by Justice Dean-Amorer about the reasons under which land can be acquired, Dr Barnett explained that lands must be acquired by the State for public purpose. He said that where it was realized that there is no genuine public purpose or there is no purpose authorized by a specific land acquisition statute, then it cannot be enshrined.

He further explained that the court did not make the policy decision as to the justification of public purpose. Justice Dean-Amorer pointed out that the constitution provided grounds for “it to be alleged that a rights is being contravened,” and enquired whether Dr Barnett had a remedy for judicial review with regards to the “threat” of land acquisition. In response Dr Barnett pointed out that Club Pigeon Point has already claimed to have suffered a breach of natural justice and has stated that the decision to acquire the beach front land was irrational. In definition Dr Barnett remarked, “there is already a breach of natural justice.” Dr Barnett also pointed out that the complaints being made by Club Pigeon Point was against the THA’s decision to recommend to Cabinet that steps for the acquisition of the land should be undertaken. The matter continues today in the Port-of-Spain Third Civil Court.