Reginald Dumas still pursuing claim concerning PSC

This was the position of attorneys representing Dumas when they appeared before High Court judge, Justice Robin Mohammed in the Port of Spain High Court yesterday.

Dumas’ attorney Elaine Greene, who held for Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, informed the judge they had written to the State last year seeking information on the status of commission members Dr James Armstrong and Romar Achat-Saney.

She said there was “no substantive response” but the issue of the interpretation of the Constitution as sought by Dumas was still to be determined.

“Whether these people are sitting, the issue as sought by the claimant still stands,” Greene said.

Attorney Carlene Seenath, who represents the Attorney General, said she had no official response from the PSC on the status of the commissioners.

Directions were given for the AG to file a response to Dumas’ lawsuit by October 12 and the matter has been adjourned to November 23.

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 appointments 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.

Mohammed, in a ruling on a preliminary issue, initially held that the interpretation application filed by Dumas pursuant to Part 62.2 of the Civil Proceedings Rules (CPR) was not properly instituted.

Dumas appealed and the 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 appealed to the Privy Council, 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 Armstrong and Achat-Saney.

In their ruling earlier this year, five Law Lords held the Court of Appeal - which comprised of Justices Peter Jamadar, Nolan Bereaux and Gregory Smith - were correct to rule that Dumas had an arguable case on a matter of public importance and was not a busybody acting for a collateral purpose.

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 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.”