Contempt proceedings stall

The three were subpoenaed in December following statements made at a panel discussion hosted by the chamber, one month earlier. Objecting to having JTUM join the proceedings were attorneys for Ali, Mouttet and the TT Chamber’s CEO, with Senior Counsel Christopher Hamel-Smith, who represents the latter, warning against an expensive waste of invaluable court time. He said the contempt allegations were hanging over the head of Faria, Mouttet and Ali and had a ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of expression. Presiding over the proceedings in the Industrial Court in Port-of-Spain are court president Deborah Thomas-Felix and members Larry Achong, Ramchand Lutchmedial and Albert Aberdeen.

Hamel-Smith urged the judges to refuse to entertain JTUM’s request and instead expeditiously deal with the issue of the court’s jurisdiction.

Attorneys representing the three have also raised a constitutional issue. They argue that provisions of the Constitution permit the Industrial Court to refer to the High Court any allegation of constitutional impropriety.

Hamel-Smith said these issues were actively before the court since December.

“These proceedings were in the public domain since December,” he said. He said if JTUM was seriously interested in assisting the court, as its attorney Douglas Mendes SC claimed, it should have provided a proper explanation as to why it should intervene and should have made attempts to contact the parties to inform them of its intention.

Hamel-Smith, along with Ali’s attorney Reginald Armour SC and Mouttet’s attorney Fyard Hosein SC, said they were only informed of JTUM’s application before the start of yesterday’s proceedings which was for submissions on the preliminary jurisdictional and constitutional points.

President of JTUM Ancel Roget and executive member Vincent Cabrera were in court yesterday.

Armour expressed concern over an admission by the court’s president that she had not yet read any of the submissions filed by attorneys in accordance with the court’s orders in December.

In her reply, Thomas-Felix defended herself, saying no one could instruct her on when she should start reading submissions filed in matters before her.

She also said although she saw JTUM’s application, the other members of the court only learned of it before yesterday’s proceedings.

In the end, Thomas-Felix instructed JTUM to file submissions justifying its application to intervene. The joint trade union movement is to do so by February 24 and the three parties are to respond by March 20 after which the court will give its ruling on whether JTUM can join the proceedings.