SSA loses appeal against retired cop

THE Strategic Services Agency (SSA) has lost an appeal against a judge’s refusal to set aside an order for leave granted to a retired police corporal who challenged the State security agency for finding him guilty of four disciplinary offences.

Justices Nolan Bereaux, Judith Jones and Mira Dean-Armorer said they found no merit in the SSA’s appeal before dismissing it.

In May 2018, Fazal Ghany had been granted leave by Justice Margaret Mohammed to challenge the SSA’s findings. In November, she dismissed the SSA’s application to set aside the grant of leave.

The SSA had found Ghany guilty of having provided false and misleading information at his recruitment interview and in testimony he gave at the High Court in a civil lawsuit over compensation for injuries he sustained while with the Anti Kidnapping Unit in 2006.

In his challenge, Ghany, who held the position of security officer II at the SSA, is seeking several declarations, including that the findings of guilt against him was unlawful.

He also wants the court to declare that the decision of the SSA to find him guilty was procedurally unfair and in breach of his right to be heard, and that the agency acted in bad faith and abused its powers in the conduct of its purported investigation of him.

The substantive judicial review claim before Mohammed is still ongoing and parties are expected to return to the judge soon now that the preliminary issue has been decided by the Appeal Court.

Ghany is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Dinesh Rambally, Stefan Ramkissoon, and Kiel Taklalsingh.

In asking for the granting of leave to be set aside, the SSA argued that Ghany failed to disclose the contents of his 2017 lawsuit and him asking for an urgent hearing during the court’s vacation.

Mohammed found that neither was material to the issue before her, and the appellate court agreed.

“At the leave hearing, done frequently in chambers, the issue is whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable ground for judicial review with a reasonable prospect of success. It is trite that an applicant at the leave stage has to surmount a low threshold,” said Dean-Armorer, who wrote the decision.

Dean-Armorer also found no delay by Ghany in filing his application, adding that Mohammed was correct in dismissing the SSA’s arguments on its application.

She also upheld the judge’s refusal to give the SSA the medical reports of Dr Stephen Ramroop and Dr Clem Ragoobar. In response to the SSA’s argument that it was entitled to the reports, Mohammed pointed out that during the course of the interview which led to the finding of guilt, Ghany had been asked about the medical reports.

“The appellant therefore had adequate information on the medical reports and their disclosure was unnecessary,” was Mohammed’s ruling.

Ghany applied for the position in the SSA in 2012, and while at an interview at the Ministry of National Security, he was asked about his early retirement from the Police Service in 2011.

Ghany was injured on the job in 2006 and was found to be medically unfit in June 2011.

He also sought compensation for his injuries under the Protective Services (Compensation) Act, which was denied.

Ghany appealed and while his appeal was pending in the Privy Council, he applied for the SSA job.

Two years later, he was asked if he was still interested in the job and he took a polygraph test and a medical examination, and was told that he passed all the pre-requisite examinations for the position.

His contract with the SSA began on March 2, 2015.

During this time, Ghany was successful in his appeal in the Privy Council and his application for compensation was sent back to the compensation committee for consideration.

A High Court action was filed on his behalf and the court ruled in his favour on August 4, 2017, and four days later he was suspended from the SSA pending a disciplinary investigation. In his original claim, he said photographs of himself and Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, whom he hired as his attorney, outside the court were published in the media, and he was stunned when he received his suspension letter.

A letter from the SSA’s director of corporate services said there were four allegations of fraudulent activity against him “by commission or omission arising from the recruitment process” for the position of security officer II, and his High Court proceedings.

He said he requested more information on the specific allegations against him and was told by the investigator if he did not co-operate with the investigation, it will be taken as an admission of guilt.

In February, he was told he was found guilty of committing all disciplinary offences for which he was charged.

In his lawsuit, he said he was never given the opportunity to properly answer the allegations against him.

In the appellate court’s ruling, Dean-Armorer said Mohammed was correct to find that the letter given to Ghany on the allegations contemplated an investigation as the first of a two-step process and giving him an opportunity to be heard as the second step.

Ghany sustained a fractured spinal disc after he slipped down a flight of stairs at the unit’s office in Couva. As a result of the accident, he suffered 26 percent paralysis of his body, forcing him to retire from the police service medically unfit.

The SSA was represented by attorneys Randall Hector, Cherise Nixon and Ryan Grant.