Judgment reserved in UNC lawsuit for $$

JUSTICE Nolan Bereaux yesterday reserved his decision in the lawsuit brought by Leader of the Opposition UNC, Basdeo Panday, and 14 of his MPs against the Government for unpaid salaries which they claim were earned during the 18 -18 electoral deadlock. “Never have we had an occasion where we had an 18-18 deadlock, but it is possible again. This case is of constituional importance,” UNC MPs’ lead attorney Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC told Justice Bereaux. On Monday, the judge began hearing arguments in the First Civil Court, San Fernando, from Dr Ramsahoye and Russell Martineau who, acting on behalf of the State, on whether the UNC MPs were entitled to some $1.8 million in salaries the Opposition claims accrued during the 18-month deadlock.

Panday and the MPs are contending that during the deadlock, when a Speaker of the House was not elected and there were no Parliamentary sittings, they (UNC MPs) were not paid salaries while MPs who were members of the ruling People’s National Movement, received salaries. Dr Ramsahoye is appearing with Anand Ramlogan, instructed by Narendra Lalbeharry. Martineau is appearing with attorneys Carla Cassau-Beckles, Ayanna Humphrey and Camille Blackman. The UNC MPs were unable to take the oath of allegiance since there was no Speaker of the House of Representatives as both sides were unable to agree on the choice of a Speaker. Without a Speaker, both Government and Opposition MPs could not be invited to take the oath of office as Members of the House of Representatives.

Dr Ramsahoye argued that there was no provision in the constitution which stipulate that salaries were not to be paid if MPs had not taken their oaths, rather it assumes that MPs will be paid. “These men have brought their case on what they said was in place upon being elected. They are saying they did not get the benefit of what was in place,” Dr Ramsahoye told Justice Bereaux. Attorney Martineau called on the judge to reject the applicants’ argument as he submitted since UNC MPs were not sworn into office, they were unable to carry out their functions in that role. He said it was not enough that the MPs were elected, but they needed to have taken the oath of allegiance to carry out the business of the country. “It is one thing to be an MP, and it is another to be carrying out the functions of Parliament,” Martinueau said. Justice Bereaux will give his decision on a date to be fixed.