‘Let Sharma’s case be heard instead’

THE Trinidad and Tobago Civil Rights Association yesterday withdrew its judicial review application against the Government on the integrity legislation on the ground that UNC Member of Parliament Chandresh Sharma filed a similar application six days later.

According to the Section 7 (5) of the Judicial Review Act 2000, Sharma, as an MP, has a more direct interest than the association in the Government’s failure to bring regulations to Parliament to give effect to the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000. The association’s ex-parte application for leave to file for judicial review came up for hearing before Justice Allan Mendonca in the Port-of-Spain First Civil Court yesterday. The association was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC and Darrell Allahar. Maharaj sought leave to withdraw his application which had been filed on August 7 in the Port-of-Spain High Court. MP Sharma filed a similar application on August 13 in the San Fernando High Court.

The association’s application sought leave of the court to apply for judicial review of the continuing failure of the Cabinet and the Attorney General to lay regulations before both Houses of Parliament in order to give effect to the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 which has been in force since November 6, 2000. The application was filed against Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Attorney General Glenda Morean-Phillip. The application stated, “The effect of this continuing failure by the executive arm of the State is that the Integrity Act has been suspended by the executive without the sanction of Parliament and public officials have escaped the scrutiny which was intended by the Integrity Act to ensure integrity in such public officials as well as in public institutions.”

Agnes Dora Young Hoo, a company director of Couva, filed an affidavit in support of the Civil Rights Association. The association learned through the media that an application which is similar to theirs, was filed by Chandresh Sharma on August 13. The applicant also learned through the media that on September 4, Sharma’s case was deemed fit for hearing during the vacation and that leave was also granted. The association feels it has succeeded in bringing the legislation to the court to point out the inaction by the legislative arm of the State. The association also recognises that Sharma, as a sitting Member of Parliament, and a person directly affected by the inaction of the State, is a person with a more direct interest than the association. Section 7 (5) of the Act gives the court a discretion to allow a person with a more direct interest priority to being involved in the action. The association feels that it has succeeded by having the action filed although it has now taken a decision to withdraw the proceedings. The court granted leave to the association to withdraw the application. There were no orders as to costs.