Court rules in favour of transparency in case against WASA: 'Reasonable evidence of misconduct'

A High Court judge has ruled in a lawsuit brought by a senior manager of the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) for access to sensitive documents in the public’s interest.

In a freedom of information request, Lancelot Lezama requested from WASA the minutes of a meeting he allegedly had with a senior executive, the executive’s resignation letter and the employment contract; and information on allegations against two managers accused of interfering in his investigation into alleged misuse of a company vehicle.

WASA denied the request, citing confidentiality and potential harm from disclosing sensitive information.

Kangaloo conducted a balancing exercise, weighing public interest against privacy concerns and other rights.

The court emphasised that legitimate concerns about accountability and potential mismanagement warranted further scrutiny.

She said Lezama raised a satisfactory argument there was reasonable evidence suggesting misconduct in relation to public funds, including allegations of interference and misuse of authority.

“The court finds further that there was a failure by the defendant in this matter to properly consider the public interest override under Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act, which specifically mandates disclosure if there is evidence of misconduct or unauthorised use of public funds exists.

“The court considers, with regard to the allegations of abuse of authority and mismanagement of public funds, that these, based on the evidence of the claimant, are not fanciful, and therefore the public interest override pursuant to Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act ought to apply.

“This court finds that transparency in how public funds are managed is fundamental, particularly in cases involving alleged manipulation or misconduct by officials.

“This court finds that the claimant has put before it sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the defendant's conduct, and thereby creates a prima facie case for further scrutiny.”

“The court is prepared to err on the side of disclosure as there are legitimate concerns regarding accountability and transparency in relation to the issues raised.”

She ordered WASA to provide the former executive’s unsigned employment contract and/or details of his remuneration package.

She said the document involved the use of public funds and was subject to scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability.

“The public has a right to appreciate financial arrangements that are in place for senior officials in a public authority.”

She also ordered the disclosure of unredacted versions of letters involving the two managers since, she said, they pertained to allegations of misconduct against public officials.

As she weighed public interest considerations, Kangaloo dismissed WASA’s concerns about the disclosure of the information as “speculative.” She said confidentiality and privacy rights could not shield public officials from scrutiny for alleged misconduct.

The FOIA’s public interest override in section 35 mandates

disclosure when there is evidence of misconduct or misuse of public funds.

Kangaloo held that WASA failed to properly consider this provision.

She ordered WASA to bear its costs.

WASA sought a 28-day stay to consider an appeal, which was opposed by Lezama’s attorneys, citing the urgency of access to the requested information.

The stay expires on November 21.

Lezama had been tasked with investigating the alleged unauthorised use of a company vehicle and claimed interference by two WASA managers and a senior executive.

He alleged their actions aimed to manipulate his investigation and influence its outcome to support a predetermined conclusion tied to a ministerial allegation. Lezama resisted pressures to alter his investigative report, stating it would be dishonest, unethical, and unlawful. He demanded the requests be made in writing and refused to comply, which reportedly led to accusations against him for testifying in another case involving WASA.

Lezama reported the alleged improper instructions he had received about the investigation but was still questioned by a senior executive.

Although the names of the officials were identified, since the allegations are yet to be proven in court, their names are being withheld.

In an interview in July 2021, WASA chairman Ravindra Nanga, who Lezama called on to investigate the three senior officials, said the matter had been referred to the authority’s attorneys.

Attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, Vishan Siewsarran, Kent Samlal and Ganesh Saroop are representing Lezama while Russell Martineau, SC, Vanessa Gopaul and Elena Araujo represent WASA.