Ruling on Devant's media case next week

JUSTICE Kevin Ramcharan will on Friday next week give his decision on former UNC minister Devant Maharaj’s claim that he was treated unequally because he was not included in the Government’s daily virtual media conference on the covid19 pandemic.

At the end of the virtual court hearing on Friday, Ramcharan said he will rule on the claim next week Friday.

Maharaj, who has described himself as a social media journalist, said he was discriminated against after he was denied access to the daily media briefings by Communication Minister Donna Cox while she granted access to other online journalists.

He said he was entitled to be treated equally and fairly as he was an established and legitimate social media journalist with a large online following.

In oral submissions, Maharaj’s lead attorney, Anand Ramlogan,SC, said regardless of if his client was a social media journalist or blogger, what was relevant was that he had, just like others, a substantial online following.

He said there were no published criteria to define who was a social media journalist to get access to the briefings.

Ramlogan pointed out that Cox, in her affidavit filed in defence of the claim, said online blogger Rhoda Bharath, who was given access to the media briefings, had an online voice.

“What are the characteristics that she has that he (Maharaj) does not?” Ramlogan asked, adding that it was wrong to exclude him on the basis that he is a politician as alleged by the minister.

He said the unequal treatment of Maharaj was the denial of access to the media briefings.

“There are social media voices which rivals traditional media as a voice,” he said. Ramlogan also pointed out the access given to online media entity, AZP News, which he described as a one-man operation.

“If he (Maharaj) is a politician. So what? Is that justification?” he asked, adding that the issue the court had to determine was if Maharaj was treated fairly.

In countering Ramlogan’s arguments, lead attorney for the State, Reginald Armour, SC, said Maharaj’s contentions were based mainly on assumptions.

He also said in inequality of treatment claims, the onus was on applicant complaining to establish the treatment was unequal.

Armour pointed to the evidence of communication specialists at both the Health Ministry and the Communication Ministry, which facilitate and host the media briefings, that there was nothing to suggest Maharaj ever attended a media briefing before the covid19 virtual press conferences.

“He was nowhere around. And, he is nowhere around because he is not a journalist. They are not aware he ever functioned as a journalist,” Armour said.

He said Maharaj provided no evidence to prove what he asserts to be. “Speculation and mere assertion is not evidence,” he added.

Armour pointed to the evidence of the ministries’ communications specialists who said they were not aware of Maharaj’s D News Network.

“Where is the evidence of DNN’s work? He simply does not get off the floor with his case. There is nothing on the evidence to show he is a journalist,” he said.

He added there was nothing sinister to allow Bharath to the virtual briefings and no inequality of treatment to say her admission to the briefing created an unequal circumstance.

“He has shown no evidence of his pedigree as a conventional media practitioner,” he added, saying also there was no evidence to show they (Maharaj and Bharath) were equal comparators.

Armour said Maharaj was not entitled to any of the declarations or reliefs sought since he failed to prove he was treated unequally or that he was a media practitioner.

At the end of Friday's six-hour hearing, the judge gave directions for the filing of submissions.