Minister Foster Cummings files claim against State

YOUTH Development and National Service Minister Foster Cummings has filed his novel constitutional claim against the State over a “leaked” Special Branch report that alleged criminal conduct on his part.

The claim was filed in the High Court on June 21. He has been seeking to have the Police Commissioner clear his name and his lawsuit claims compensation for the “gross violation” of his rights to private life.

“This is a claim for misuse of private information/breach of confidence in relation to the unlawful disclosure and/or dissemination of a two-page Special Branch note which was submitted, under cover of a memorandum, dated July 5, 2019, from the ACP Special Branch to the Police Commissioner…”

Cummings is seeking compensation for the misuse of his private information and for breach of confidence by the State (through the actions of the police) by disclosing information in the Special Branch note which identified him as a subject of a police investigation.

He is also seeking redress for the “repeated acts of disclosure” of his information by the disclosure of the status of the investigation.

In his lawsuit, the minister also seeks declarations for the misuse of his private and confidential information, the State’s “continuing denial of liability,” and the commissioner’s refusal or failure to respond to his requests.

“The contents of the Special Branch note and memorandum and the continued acknowledgement of its existence and the status of the investigation into the claimant have placed the claimant in a very negative light because the note contains unfounded allegations of scandal, larceny, fraud and corruption levelled against the claimant by unnamed third parties.”

The lawsuit said that being a person allegedly under criminal investigation, Cummings had a right or reasonable expectation of privacy and the police’s responsibility and obligation to keep such information private, confidential and secret.

“The impugned actions of misuse of private information and breach of confidentiality by the defendant have brought the claimant into public odium and disrepute, thereby exposing him to public ridicule and contempt,” the lawsuit said.

It further contends that the State, by the misuse of the minister’s private information and breach of confidentiality, has “intentionally or recklessly” inflicted emotional harm on the minister.

“There was no justification or reasonable excuse for the defendant, its servants and/or agents to disclose the Special Branch note and memorandum and to disclose the continued status of the investigation.”

It further contends that the State owed Cummings a duty to treat the information and any investigation as secret, private and confidential.

“The Special Branch note and memorandum is self-evidently private, confidential and secret and at all material times the claimant had a reasonable expectation that the fact of and the contents of the Special Branch note and memorandum were and would remain private, confidential and secret.

At a media briefing on June 8, the minister’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Ronnie Bissessar, SC, signalled his intention to file a claim against the State over the leak of the Special Branch report.

Maharaj admitted the minister was hesitant to take legal action against the Police Commissioner (CoP) or the State “unless it was absolutely necessary.” However, he said Cummings was anxious to have the error of the leak of the police report to the senator “corrected so the damage done to his character and reputation could be minimised.”

He said his team wrote repeatedly to the CoP to “correct the false personal information” in the Special Branch report, but there had been no response except for a request for an extension of time to respond.

With time against him to file a judicial review claim against the CoP, Maharaj said Cummings was advised to file a constitutional claim for a breach of his right to privacy against the State. A pre-action protocol letter was sent to the Attorney General in October 2023, but Maharaj said the Attorney General told them the State could not be held liable for the disclosure of the Special Branch report unless Cummings provided the names of officers who allegedly leaked the document to the senator, and the disclosure was unauthorised.

“The minister is adamant to vindicate his character and reputation,” Maharaj said, adding that any damages awarded to Cummings, if successful, would be used to assist his constituents.

Earlier this month, Cummings defamation claims against UNC senator Jayanti Lutchmedial over the Special Branch report and the publishing of his confidential financial information, both in 2022, moved one step closer to trial which is likely to be held in May or June 2025.

Cummings first filed a defamation lawsuit maintaining Lutchmedial defamed his name when, on May 5, 2022, at a UNC public meeting, she revealed the contents of a Special Branch report, which she said she received in her mailbox from a whistleblower.

She subsequently posted a statement on her Facebook account about the allegations, calling for the police to thoroughly investigate them.

Cummings contended the report was “private and confidential” and should not have been revealed to the public.

On May 16, 2022, at another UNC public meeting, Lutchmedial presented several documents, including a source-of-funds declaration form, two letters of award and a cheque, which all referenced Cummings, which she again posted on her Facebook page.

Cummings is also represented by attorneys Rikki Harnanan, Kingsley Walesby, and Varin Gopaul Gosine.