Registrar: No collusion with AG’s office

“I wish to emphasise that the actions related to the fixing of an appointment for the said matter before the Court of Appeal outlined above did not depart from the established practice and protocol of the Court in dealing with urgent applications,” Rodriguez wrote in a letter.

On May 19, Justice Frank Seepersad said there is a “strong arguable case” that the Property Tax Act could be struck down, or, the process by which Government is seeking to enforce it, could be justifiably reviewed by the courts.

Seepersad ruled the stay would remain in effect until May 31, until further notice.

The Appeal Court met on the issue on Monday and put it off to June 6.

Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar accused Government of claiming to appeal the judgment in Parliament before they had filed the action and threatened a motion that Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi and acting Prime Minister Colm Imbert be brought before the Privileges Committee for wilfully misleading the Lower House. Al-Rawi responded, however, that Government had received confirmation that the appeal would be heard on May 22.

Persad-Bissessar reported they had received confirmation from Rodriguez that no appeal had been filed and no emergency session had been convened for May 22.

Rodriguez spoke on the issue in a letter dated May 26, in response to one dated May 21 from attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, who is representing former People’s Partnership minister Devant Maharaj as the party challenges the implementation of the act, specifically the submission of valuation return forms.

In her letter, she said Maharaj’s decision to publicise Ramlogan’s communication and without giving her a chance to respond would lead the fair minded observer to assume the intent of his letter was to “impute collusion” between the Judiciary and the Office of the Attorney General which is “an imputation I categorically reject.” “Further the allegation has had the unfortunate consequence of besmirching the reputation of the holder of the Office of Registrar of the Supreme Court.” Rodriguez provided a chronology of the events: • May 19: Rodriguez received a call at 6.53 pm from Deborah Peake, counsel for the Commissioner of Valuations, who wished to “move” the Appeal Court on an urgent matter concerning Seepersad’s judgement.

• Peake specified a notice of appeal was being prepared, but in order to be heard that night, she was willing to address the court via oral application.

• At 6.56 pm Rodriguez consulted with the most senior Appeal Court judge - Justice Mendonca - who indicated insufficient reasons were presented to have the court that night.

He instructed that if an appeal notice was filed/forwarded, the appeal would be listed for May 22 at 9 am.

• Rodriguez communicated this to Peake at 7.16 pm.

• On May 20, Rodriguez was contacted at 9.36 am by Ramlogan, who enquired if notice of appeal on the matter was filed.

She said it had not.

• At 5.29 pm that day, Rodriguez received draft notice of appeal via email from Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon (Attorney General’s office). She communicated with Soo Hon and Ramlogan’s attorney (Ms Lutchmedial) confirming the Appeal Court’s date on Monday.

• At 6.59 pm that day, Rodriguez forwarded the notice of appeal to Ramlogan.

She informed Ramlogan that it was settled practice in hearing of urgent appeals for the appellant to notify the respondent of the date and time for hearing but it was never the duty to notify the intended respondent of same. She also reported that on May 22 there were 10 matters listed for the West Court and only two for the East Court and she was instructed by Mendonca on May 20 to list the appeal for the East Court.