Justice Seepersad scolds PP

Seepersad’s disapproval of the council’s failure to meet for over five years came as he ruled in favour of an army captain who sought a hearing of the council in August 2014 on an allegation by a senior officer that he faked his sick leave when he was seriously injured in a traffic accident earlier that year.

Andrew Seesahai resigned from the regiment on July 22, 2014, but alleged that when he questioned his commanding officer on the status of his resignation letter, he was threatened and nothing had been done about his request to resign or for resettlement.

He then sought an audience with the Defence Council after filing a complaint.

Although he was advised in October of that year that the matter would be placed on the next council meeting agenda, no meeting was held. Seesahai, of Santa Margarita, St Augustine, filed for judicial review. He was represented by attorney Gerald Ramdeen.

In his ruling, Seepersad said once the process under Section 194 of the Defence Act had been invoked, there existed a statutory obligation to render a decision on a complaint placed before the council.

The Defence Council comprises the Minister of National Security, two cabinet ministers appointed by the prime minister, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Security.

The judge said any allegation of unbecoming conduct must be thoroughly investigated. “It is difficult to fathom why during the last four years of the previous government’s tenure, no meeting of the Defence Council was occasioned,” he said. He also expressed concern that the council had advanced no proper explanation of why Seesahai’s position had not been determined.

“A body such as the defendant, clothed with the statutory obligation to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of members of the Defence Force, cannot simply abdicate its duty by its failure to promptly and efficiently address complaints referred to it,” he said.

He was critical of the fact that for five years the Defence Council did not meet and said, “Such a circumstance is simply unacceptable and really amounts to a gross dereliction of the statutory obligation that it was mandated to follow.

“This untenable situation continued for a further year into the new administration’s reign, when until a meeting was held on 14 July 2016,” he noted. In his ruling, Seepersad held that the Defence Council’s failure to provide Seesahai with a prompt hearing and determination of his petition was unreasonable, unacceptable and unlawful. He has given the council 14 days in which to make a decision on Seesahai’s complaint