State loses Dumas appeal

The State appealed a ruling of the Court of Appeal to reverse Justice Robin Mohammed’s decision to throw out Dumas’ application in July of 2014.

In a written ruling yesterday, Lords Kerr, Clarke, Wilson, Carnwath and Hodge held that the Court of Appeal - which comprised of Justices Peter Jamadar, Nolan Bereaux and Gregory Smith - were correct to hold that Dumas had an arguable case on a matter of public importance and was not a busybody acting for a collateral purpose.

The appellate court had also found that there was no established tradition in Trinidad and Tobago which prevented a citizen with a legitimate interest in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. In their ruling, the British Law Lords also held that the question raised by Dumas, who has asked for a legal interpretation of the Constitution was one for the court to decide and not the House of Representatives.

They noted that the rule of law required that those exercising public power should do so lawfully. They also noted that the matter before them raised ‘an important question about the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear an application by a citizen for the Court to interpret a provision of the Constitution.’ The State argued that the appellate court overlooked the role of the Parliament and because the Lower House approved the nominations of the two, Dumas’ legal challenge of their qualifications and experience was impermissible on the basis of the separation of powers principle. Dumas had filed an application in the High Court seeking an interpretation of the Constitution as it related to the appointment of Armstrong and Achat- Saney, whose nominations, 2013.

In his ruling, Justice Mohammed held that the interpretation application filed by Dumas pursuant to Part 62.2 of the Civil Proceedings Rules (CPR) was not properly instituted.

The appellate court held the procedure of filing the claim could be remedied under the CPR and held that Dumas’ concern was a legitimate query of the composition of the PSC.

The State had argued against the appeal, submitting that Dumas must have a legitimate interest in the composition of the PSC, and could prove that he was directly affected by the President’s decision to appoint Dr Armstrong and Achat-Saney.

Nominations for the two were approved by affirmative resolution of the House of Representatives on November 13, 2013, and the appointment by the President for a term of three years took effect from November 19, 2013.

The appointment of the two met with Dumas’ disapproval, on the basis that they did not possess the requisite qualifications and he asked the High Court to declare that the President has no power and or authority to nominate and or appoint to the PSC any person who is not qualified and experienced in the disciplines of law, sociology, management, or finance.

The State was ordered to pay Dumas’ costs