Wasteful case

THROUGHOUT his impasse with Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass, Minister of Finance Colm Imbert has been unafraid to exercise his legal rights.

As the question of a $2.6 billion revenue discrepancy came to a boil, a pre-action protocol letter threatening a lawsuit was sent to Ms Ramdass in April.

Mr Imbert delayed laying a report and further got Parliament to pass resolutions extending deadlines.

The minister later recommended to the Cabinet that a special investigative team probe the matter.

The Cabinet in May agreed to do so, appointing a retired judge, while Mr Imbert wore the constitutional hat of acting Prime Minister.

So, it’s baffling why, in litigation thrown out summarily by the Privy Council on November 7, the minister sought to block Ms Ramdass from pursuing legal action of her own in relation to her office’s independence and the implications of the probe.

That the law lords cut short oral submissions by the state’s attorneys and did not find it necessary to hear from Ms Ramdass’s legal team suggest this appeal was a frolic at citizens’ expense.

In June, the Court of Appeal had cleared the way for Ms Ramdass to sue, granting leave.

The London court noted Mr Imbert needed a “knockout blow” to show why the local court was wrong.

Such a blow never landed.

The threshold for leave is low, requiring only an arguable case.

Unlike his Cabinet colleague Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, who is eager to justify cases on the basis that they might shed light on legal principles, Mr Imbert’s move to prevent Ms Ramdass from pursuing her matter suggests he did not see things in terms of settling the law or from some other noble perspective.

All the exchanges in this controversy have been so vexed, so contentious, so filled with rancour, that onlookers will be forgiven for feeling that, yet again, politicians have weaponised the courts to pursue what is politically expedient.

For too many, courts are simply means to compel and coerce.

The trip to the London judicial committee undoubtedly also falls within the classic rubric of “frustrate, filibuster and delay.”

Worryingly, Mr Imbert’s litigation on the question of Ms Ramdass’s leave falls within a pattern of conduct.

His recent disclosures relating to the EximBank and a company’s forex activities paint a picture of a powerful officeholder unafraid to cross boundaries meant to place his office at a remove.

It is an even more disturbing picture given how the biggest concern surrounding the new, independent TT Revenue Authority is its vulnerability to political interference.

Instead of wasting time, effort and money, Ms Ramdass’s case should have been allowed to run its course.

Ministers should not take unjustifiable litigation all the way to the Privy Council just because they have a beef.