Ramesh: Govt not serious about tackling inequality

FORMER UNC Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj is accusing the present regime of pussyfooting around the question of discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago and of leaving TT’s citizens defenceless against prejudice because it had the courts void the Equal Opportunity Act (EOA), 2000. “This PNM Government is not committed to redressing the issue of inequality of treatment,” he told Newsday yesterday when asked to respond to PNM Attorney General John Jeremie’s post Cabinet statement Thursday that private institutions were free to exercise prejudice against anyone and were not bound by the Republican Constitution. “The PNM when in Opposition did not support the Equal Opportunity Act when it came to Parliament, saying the Act required a special majority and that the PNM preferred to have the question of discrimination studied by the Centre for Ethnic Studies,” Maharaj said.

“And when in Government, it asked the court to declare the act unconstitutional.” The former UNC AG argued that the Act was not about race alone and, according to opinions sought of foreign and local experts in constitutional law in 2000, the EOA did not require a special majority: “Under the Equal Opportunity Act, both private and State bodies could not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, origin, including geographical origin, religion, marital status; or any disability of a person. In the particular case of St Charles, the Catholic Church could have been forced to admit Kalifa Logan.” Had the PNM not moved to have the Act declared unconstitutional, he stressed, today both private and State institutions would be bound by the EOA. Persons facing discrimination of any sort would be able to report such discrimination to the Equal Opportunity Commission free of charge. He said the commission would then try to seek a resolution of the dispute.

If there was none, then the commission was empowered to refer the matter to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal — a superior court of record — for its deliberation. The Tribunal could give a verdict, award damages and costs and even issue injunctions. Had the Act been in force, he surmised, there would be no “grey area” in the law allowing private institutions such as St Charles to discriminate. He said while he agreed that discrimination in society should be studied, people also needed a mechanism for redress and this is what the UNC had sought to achieve. He accused the PNM of being “too narrow” in its approach to discrimination, seeing only race. However, he noted several other sorts of cases of discrimination could have been resolved by the commission.

Maharaj wondered if Government had the Act struck down by the High Court so it could not be accused of discrimination in its housing award scheme or CEPEP programmes. However, he cautioned the PNM: “Governments come and go.” He also warned that not having a mechanism for redress could cause a breakdown of social order and contribute to crime. “This is a diverse society,” he noted. “There must be a place for people to complain.” He concluded that even if the court had declared the act unconstitutional, Government should have returned to Parliament to have the Act amended or passed with a special majority if it were serious about fighting discrimination.