Former AG submits... ‘Govt has failed my clients’

FORMER UNC Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC said yesterday that his 21 clients cannot seek redress because of  the failure of the PNM Government to appoint an Equal Opportunity Commission and Tribunal following the passage of the Equal Opportunity Act 2000.

Maharaj said Parliament had given effect to the Act, but the Government has done nothing to establish the Commission and the Tribunal. In effect, he said, affected persons cannot seek redress under this Act because of the failure of the Government. Maharaj spent all of yesterday making his submissions on the constitutional motion brought by 21 persons against the State. These persons are seeking constitutional relief to have the Commission and Tribunal appointed. The motion is being heard before Justice Gregory Smith in the Port-of-Spain Fourth Civil Court. Appearing with Maharaj are Rikki Harnanan and Darrel Allahar, while Russell Martineau SC, another former Attorney General, and Deborah Peake are representing the Attorney General. Hearing resumes this morning. Maharaj said the Act was passed in 2000 with an amendment in 2001. The object of the Act, according to Maharaj, is “to prohibit certain types of discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different status, and to establish an Equal Opportunity Commission and an Equal Opportunity Tribunal.”

The Act came into existence when Maharaj was Attorney General in the UNC Government. “The Act was fully brought into force by January 31, 2001,” the former AG added. “The applicants submit that in the circumstances, it cannot seriously be contended by the executive, through the respondents that, it having exercised the power to commence, it can disavow and disregard the Act.” Maharaj said when the Act was enacted by Parliament, it became law, but it has not become operative law until it is commenced and brought into force by the executive. Maharaj said the Act creates  a new wrong of discrimination in relation to employment, education, the provision of goods and services, and the provision of accommodation on the grounds of either status (sex, race, origin, religion, marital status, disability), or victimisation. Under this Act, Maharaj said a further new wrong was created through offensive behavior. “Protection is given to every person in the Act at the time of its commencement in respect of the commission of such wrongs by both the State and private persons. “With respect to private persons, no such wrongs existed prior to the coming into force of the Act. With respect to the State, no wrong of ‘offensive behaviour’ existed before,” Maharaj added.

Maharaj said there was protection against discrimination by both the Central Government and public authorities exercising coercive powers. He said section 4 of the constitution states that every person is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions “without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion and sex.” Maharaj said the Act allowed persons to lay a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission which could investigate and attempt a conciliation. Failing that, the Commission would initiate proceedings before the Tribunal with the approval of the complainant. In the end, the Tribunal could award compensation or damages. During his submissions, Maharaj quoted several local cases in support of his case. They included Wayne Whiteman v the AG; Thornhill v the AG; Guerra v Baptiste; Jaroo v the AG; Alleyne Forte v the AG; Crane v Rees; and Mc Cleod v the AG.