Gross neglect of duty

Very often when legislation is debated in Parliament, legislators examine the provisions with a fine tooth comb. In the political give and take that occurs during the committee stage of a Bill, MPs and senators are often assured that whatever concerns they have will be addressed by the presence of certain checks and balances in the statute. One such check is often a quasi-autonomous review body of some sort.

In the case of the Defence Act, Section 7 establishes a Defence Council which falls under “the general authority of the minister for the command, administration and discipline of and all other matters relating to the force.” This council does not have any hand in operational matters relating to soldiers. It cannot send soldiers out into the battlefield. Rather, it is a body which brings Cabinet ministers, public servants and Defence Force personnel to review matters and to act as an appeals body. If a soldier has a complaint, he or she may go to the council.

The benefit of this is palpable. An aggrieved soldier will be able to turn to a wider group of officials to air his or her complaints.

Such a procedure goes hand in hand with the high levels of power which Parliament bestows on public bodies and entities. Therefore, when the law is implemented in such a way that sees the power enforced, but not the check, this is a serious perversion of the letter and spirit of the law.

Were it not for the court case brought by Andrew Seesahai, the State’s failure to convene a meeting of the council would never have come to light. In handing down a ruling in the case, Justice Frank Seepersad minced no words.

“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 matter before it 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,” the judge 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, until a meeting was held on 14 July 2016.” Here is yet another arm of the State which has managed to keep its inefficiency under the radar.

Until now.

We welcome the judge’s comments.

We hope it will result in a stronger resolve on the part of technocrats, advisers and ministers to fulfil their statutory duties.

Ironically, all of this demonstrates the importance of another arm of the State functioning efficiently: the Judiciary. When official State entities fail to fulfil lawful obligations, the only recourse open to a citizen is the court.

It is likely, however, this matter is just the tip of the iceberg.

Though this case focused on one body and the conduct of one government administration, the fact remains that successive administrations have, over the course of years, even decades, often failed in their statutory duties.

If this is to change in the long run it is important for more citizens to come forward, as Seesahai has done.