Ravi Balgobin Maharaj goes to court for information on state legal fees

SOCIAL activist and public-interest advocate Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has been permitted by the High Court to challenge the State’s to fully disclose details of attorneys paid millions by the Office of the Attorney General in legal fees during the 2024 fiscal year.

Justice Carol Gobin granted Maharaj’s ex-parte application for judicial review on February 21.

In his lawsuit, Maharaj contends some $158 million was paid to private attorneys based on statements made at a standing finance committee session in Parliament, last year.

Maharaj first asked for disclosure in November 2024. He asked for names and sums paid by the AG’s office for 2024 along with invoices.

On January 14, the ministry’s permanent secretary responded to the request, refusing full disclosure and providing only the names of 64 attorneys along with heavily redacted invoices. It did not confirm the figure repeated by Maharaj, instead pointing to expenditure of almost $1 billion from 2010 to 2015.

On February 19, the permanent secretary provided its access decision, contending there was no document or correspondence with the names of those attorneys who objected to disclosure of their fees.

Maharaj’s judicial review application, filed on February 20, said, “To date, the respondent/ intended defendant has therefore refused to disclose the unredacted invoices of those attorneys paid legal fees in fiscal 2024 by the Office of the Attorney General who have since indicated that they are objecting to disclosure.

“This is, notwithstanding, the absence of any correspondence from these attorneys formally objecting to the disclosure of their unredacted invoices.”

Maharaj wants a declaration that the decision to redact the invoices was illegal and a breach of the Freedom of Information Act and an order quashing the refusal of his requests. He insists he is entitled to invoices and wants the court to order the ministry to provide them unredacted or reconsider his FOI request.

In its reasons for its refusal, the Attorney General’s office cited personal safety concerns and potential defamatory remarks against attorneys.

However, Maharaj’s lawyers dismissed these justifications as “untenable, arbitrary, and irrational.”

Maharaj wants unredacted names of attorneys, the specific amounts paid to them, and their invoices. His legal team argues that the public has a right to know how taxpayers' money has been spent, especially given the alarming scale of the expenditure and the prior transparency precedent set by former administrations.

He is represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Kent Samlal, Aasha Ramlal, Jared Jagroo and Natasha Bisram.