Appeal Court throws out Sturge's challenge on Imbert

FORMER UNC senator, attorney Wayne Sturge’s challenge of Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s alleged delay to hold meetings of the joint select committee on energy affairs to discuss the closure of Petrotrin, has been thrown out by the appellate court.

In June, Sturge received permission of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh advance his claim after he ruled that the court had the jurisdiction to hear it although it involves a committee of Parliament.

However, in an oral decision on Monday, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed and Charmaine Pemberton reversed Boodoosingh’s ruling on the court’s jurisdiction.

In delivering their ruling, both judges said they took judicial notice that Parliament had since dissolved so their decision would be academic but will provide guidance on the issue.

They held they could not understand how he arrived at the finding the court had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint when he held that inappropriate intervention can have adverse effect on parliament's efficiency.

They also ruled that the judge’s ruling contravened Parliament’s absolute privilege and its exclusive jurisdiction to regulate its own matters.

In all, the judges found eight “material errors of law” made by the judge for assuming jurisdiction.

They allowed the appeals of the AG and Imbert and set side Boodoosingh’s orders.

In his decision, Boodoosingh said Sturge’s claim before the court did not impact on the committee or when, where, how and what it should deal with, but allows the court to say whether there is a constitutional duty to call meetings at regular intervals.

Boodoosingh was asked to determine the issue of the court’s jurisdiction in the claim Sturge filed last November, in which he first asked for an injunction to temporarily stop the sale of former Petrotrin’s Pointe-a-Pierre refinery – now called Guaracara Refining Co Ltd.

In his injunction application, Sturge asked the court to order the chairman of the Joint Select Committee (JSC) on Energy Affairs, Finance Minister Colm Imbert, to convene a meeting of the committee. The injunction application was eventually withdrawn after dates were set for the hearing of the committee.

In his constitutional claim, Sturge complained that the committee did not meet for almost 20 months and had as “the singular subject of consideration” when it last met on February 21, 2018, the restructuring of Petrotrin. He sought declarations that the failure by the JSC chairman to hold a meeting of the committee for the last 19 months was unlawful.

The committee met on November 1, in camera, and again on November 20. In his decision, Boodoosingh pointed out that there was no order sought by Sturge to compel Imbert to call the meeting. It was argued that the court had no jurisdiction to review decisions made by a parliamentary committee and to hear the matter will “interfere with the dignity and efficiency of Parliament’s operations.”

However, Boodoosingh said based on what Sturge was asking for, it was not evident what adverse effect it would have on the dignity and efficiency of the operations of Parliament by answering the questions posed by Sturge.

Boodoosingh said in his view, there was a difference between the procedures adopted by a committee, “which would fall within the ambit of parliamentary privilege,” and the omission to call the committee at all and if that failure amounted to a breach of the Constitution.

“This difference gives jurisdiction to the court to hear the present claim for the reliefs being sought,” he said.

Sturge was represented by attorney Gerald Ramdeen, Umesh Maharaj and Dayadai Harripaul while Fyard Hosein, SC, Rishi Dass, Kendra Mark and Amrita Ramsook represented the Attorney General. The Speaker of the House of Representatives was represented by Deborah Peake, SC, Ravi Heffes-Doon, Savi Ramhit and Dianne Katwaroo while Senior Counsel Martin Daly, Jason Mootoo and Nairob Smart represented the Finance Minister as chairman of the committee.