Jwala gets leave

In an oral ruling in the Port-of- Spain High Court yesterday, Justice Nadia Kangaloo granted permission to Rambarran to file for judicial review. She also held that in evidence before her, there was no inordinate delay in filing the application in July, although five months had by then elapsed since Rambarran’s dismissal as CB Governor.

She pointed out that he did so after several unsuccessful attempts to secure information relative to the decision taken to advise then Acting President Christine Kangaloo to revoke his appointment.

Justice Kangaloo also noted that the Cabinet, which was named as the intended defendant in the action, suffered no prejudice by the eventual filing of the leave application, adding that it was in the public’s interest that Rambarran not, at this stage, be ‘shut out’ from seeking answers.

In her oral ruling - of which a written copy will be made available next week Tuesday- Justice Kangaloo said one of the basis for her granting leave was that she was inclined to take a wider interpretation and purposive interpretation of the Judicial Review Act, despite opposition from the State. Early in the case, Justice Kangaloo disclosed to Rambarran’s attorneys of her familial connection to then Senate President and invited them to seek her recusal, however, Rambarran proffered no objection to the judge hearing his case.

Rambarran was present in court yesterday when the judge gave her decision on his leave application.

Rambarran, who was appointed Central Bank Governor on July 17, 2012, was dismissed by Acting President Christine Kangaloo on December 23, 2015. On several occasions between February to July, Rambarran through his attorneys, wrote several letters requesting information as to the process and procedure that was followed in coming to a decision to have his appointment revoked.

He wrote President Anthony Carmona in February and received correspondence in March, indicating that the decision to revoke his appointment was made by Senate President Christine Kangaloo, acting President at the time and referred questions to her.

A similar request for information was sent to the Senate President in April, and in May, Rambarran was told that the decision was based on advice of the Cabinet, pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Constitution and that her Excellency ‘concluded that she was obliged to so act in accordance with the advice.” Rambarran was further advised to seek his answers from the Cabinet and he did so in May under Section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act, seeking access to the Cabinet Note and minute relative to the decision to advise the Acting President to revoke his instrument of appointment; correspondence between the Office of the PM and the Ministry of Finance as well as correspondence between the Office of the PM and the Office of the President.

He received a reply on July 7, indicating that the information he sought was exempt under the FOIA, following which he filed his judicial review application in the High Court. The Freedom of Information legislation allows citizens to access the records of public authorities.

Authorities may decline requests if the items requested fall within listed exemptions.

According to his application, which was argued by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, Jayanti Lutchmedial and Kent Samlal, he needed to know the true and correct reasons for his revocation so that he can be properly advised of his legal rights and the failure to provide the information has frustrated these efforts. Rambarran was given until September 29, to file his judicial review claim and the case will again be heard on November 21.

The Cabinet was represented in court yesterday by a team of attorneys led by attorney Sanjeev Lalla.