Judge refuses to lift transfer ban for bearded Muslim prison officers

A HIGH COURT judge has refused to set aside an injunction which prevents the Commissioner of Prisons from transferring two Muslim prison officers who have complained of a policy barring them from wearing beards.

On Tuesday, Justice Margaret Mohammed dismissed the State’s application to set aside the injunctions she granted to the two officers in February.

In their lawsuits, Sherwin Ramnarine and Javed Boodram claimed the policy breached their constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance.

After threatening legal action, Ramnarine, who was assigned to the Claxton Bay Correctional Facility, and Boodram, who was last assigned to the Maximum Security Prison in Arouca, were reassigned to the Port-of-Spain State Prison.

Mohammed granted the injunctions which prevented the commissioner from transferring the officers until their substantive lawsuits over the policy were determined. As part of her order, Mohammed directed the commissioner to allow the two to continue to report to their original posts.

On Tuesday, she said she did so to maintain the status quo.

In their application to set aside the injunctions, attorneys for the State argued the balance of convenience would be to lift the stay, as there would be greater prejudice to the State. They also argued that it would be in the public’s interest to remove the restriction so that the commissioner could transfer officers to facilities he deemed fit in the interest of a proper and efficient functioning prison service.

But in her ruling, Mohammed said, “Having considered the evidence and the submissions on behalf of the parties, I am not minded to set aside the stay.”

The judge held that the transfers were unlawful.

She said that she accepted the commissioner had the power to transfer prison officers to meet the needs of the prison service, at any time, he had to do so within the confines of the law.

Mohammed said the relevant law on transfers was Regulation 29 of the Prison Service regulations. Assistant Commissioner of Prisons Elvin Scanterbury said the officers were not transferred but reassigned. However, the judge said there was no provision in the regulations for a reassignment, either temporary or permanent.

"The Commissioner ought to know the law and he cannot create a new term called reassignment which is not provided for in the law in order to avoid complying with the law.

"...For this reason the effect of that order of transfer was illegal." She also said the transfers were not coincidental but were effected after the officers began legal action.

"In the absence of any evidence that the Claimants had some special skills which were absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the Port of Spain Prison, it seems to me that their transfer was punishment by the Commissioner for them pursuing legal action in circumstances where there were no disciplinary proceedings."

The judge said in the case filed by the officers there were serious issues to be tried in the officers’ claim, particularly whether it is a breach of their constitutional rights to keep a beard, as Muslim men; and whether the prison rules prevented them from growing and keeping a beard were unconstitutional.

She held that damages would not be an adequate remedy to compensate the two officers if the court found there was a breach of their rights, and the balance of convenience lay in keeping the stay in place.

“The claimants have asserted three aspects of prejudice.”

“In the instant claim, the rights which the claimants have claimed have been breached are their right to freedom of conscience and religious observance to wear a beard as a male Muslim."
In her ruling, the judge said, “In my opinion, if the claimants are successful in proving the breach of their right under the Constitution, there is no guarantee that they would be awarded damages.

“Further, even if they are awarded damages it would not be adequate to compensate the claimants for such a serious breach."

She also said the State did not provide evidence that the two had some special skill that make it imperative “in the interest of national security that they are to be transferred to the Port of Spain Prison.

“I accept that it is in the public interest for the prison service to be functioning efficiently and properly and that the commissioner can exercise his discretion to transfer officers to facilities which he may deem high risk and that one such facility is the Port of Spain Prison...

“There is no evidence that the inability to transfer the claimants to the Port of Spain Prison until the determination of their claims would cause the Port of Spain Prison or indeed the entire Prison Service to grind to a halt,” she said.

She also ruled that the stay granted in the two lawsuits would not open the floodgates to other prison officers to object to transfer orders.

Ramnarine joined the Prison Service in 2002, and Boodram in 2014. Boodram was already a Muslim when he joined the service. Ramnarine converted after joining.

Both men claimed they were constantly harassed by senior officers, who repeatedly advised them to shave the beards that they wear as part of their religious beliefs.

Admitting that prison officers are only exempted from the facial-hair policy on the basis of annual medicals, Boodram said he got an exemption from a dermatologist, as he has a skin condition and develops painful cysts on his face when he is clean-shaven.

However, Boodram’s lawyers claimed the exemption only allowed him to grow a low beard, as opposed to the length prescribed in his religion.

While Ramnarine, who has an associate degree in Islamic studies, claimed he was aware of Muslim colleagues seeking to use the exemption to sidestep the policy, he chose to avoid such action.

Both Boodram and Ramnarine claimed they were threatened with disciplinary action for repeatedly failing to comply with requests to shave their beards, and filed the lawsuits as a result.

They also argued their proposed transfers were a direct result of their signalling their intention to pursue legal action.

Through the lawsuit, the officers are seeking a series of declarations against the policy and compensation for breaches of their constitutional rights.

Ramnarine and Boodram are being represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Natasha Bisram, and Sheldon Sookram.

The State is represented by Nisa Simmons, Akeenie Murray Janique Mitchell, Vandana Ramadhar and Domonique Bernard.