Ruling on PCA's challenge to SRC report by October

DID the Cabinet fully adopt the Salaries Review Commission’s (SRC) latest report, and if it did, can a new administration walk it back? These are among the questions raised as the High Court continues hearing a legal challenge brought by the director and deputy director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA).

At the June 10 hearing, Justice Frank Seepersad extended the deadline to June 30 for both the cabinet and the SRC to file their responses in the case, which alleges that the Cabinet acted unlawfully by accepting salary recommendations without consulting those affected.

The case, brought by PCA director David West and deputy director Michelle Solomon-Baksh, challenges a cabinet decision, communicated via a Ministry of Finance circular on December 23, 2024, to adopt parts of the SRC’s 120th Report.

While that report includes salary reductions for PCA leadership, it also contains increases for other public office holders, including members of the judiciary, whose pay hikes have already taken effect.

During the hearing, attorney Shalini Singh, appearing for the cabinet, confirmed that no affidavits had yet been filed and asked until September, since she said she needed instructions.

However, Seepersad found three months to be “quite excessive.”

“It is a strict position. It’s either the last cabinet adopted, and I don’t know how it would work if the decision, having been taken, the new administration can rescind a decision that has consequences for the parties who have the subject of the court.”

The judge’s comments came after he enquired from the SRC’s attorneys and the PCA directors’ attorneys if cabinet had adopted the report entirely.

The SRC’s Jason Mootoo, SC, said it appeared so, while the PCA's attorney, Douglas Mendes, SC, said he did not know, but it did from his client’s point of view, as it related to the reduction in salaries for the PCA. He noted that the report included increases for parliamentarians and ministers, and Seepersad said the Judiciary also with those increases already in effect.

“And that's why I asked, because, again, I think it's important to understand the framework within which we are operating.”

Mendes also explained that the proceedings challenged the SRC’s decision, with the cabinet’s adoption of the report as it related to the PCA being part of the case.

He said the cabinet had been joined to the case because relief was being sought against the consequences of the SRC’s decision, and if that decision was found unlawful, the cabinet’s adoption should also be set aside. He suggested there was likely little additional evidence the cabinet could provide.

The cabinet was ordered to put in its evidence by June 30.

The SRC was also given until then to put in three affidavits since Mootoo said there were gaps in institutional memory, as the review process dated back to 2009 and involved a now-retired consultant.

Mootoo explained that the process involved job evaluations and compensation surveys that dated back to 2009. Mootoo admitted one of the issues was whether individual consultations were required, as insisted by the PCA directors, since he noted, compensation surveys and job evaluation exercises did not require such a level of individual consultation.

“But we have to get it right,” he said, as he asked for time to present all the material to the court since the matter could affect thousands of officeholders who fell under the SRC’s remit.

The judge said he planned to review the evidence in July, aiming to resolve the case by September or October.

The PCA directors were allowed in May to amend their judicial review claim against the SRC to add the cabinet as an interested party.

PCA directors: SRC procedure flawed

In their lawsuit, the directors argue the report violated the principles of natural justice and that they were denied the opportunity to be heard before the recommendations.

Their amended application seeks to quash the cabinet’s decision, contained in Minister of Finance Circular No 11 of 2024, dated December 23, 2024, and bar any further changes to their terms based on the SRC report.

At present, the two are being paid the same salaries as before, but the SRC’s revision will go into effect for future appointees.

West was reappointed PCA director for a third consecutive term on December 13, 2024, for five years, while Solomon-Baksh was reappointed for a five-year term as deputy director in July 2022.

According to their court filing, the SRC’s 120th report was laid before the House of Representatives without debate. Although a motion to approve the report was listed for January 13, 2025, it was never debated. The claim noted that while the cabinet had final authority over salaries, it could only act on SRC recommendations, but those recommendations must be fair and lawful.

West and Solomon-Baksh say they filed their claim in February after seeing the report listed for parliamentary approval. Only afterwards did they receive the finance minister’s circular confirming the cabinet’s acceptance of the SRC’s recommendations.

West said he contacted then attorney general Reginald Armour, SC, seeking cabinet reconsideration, but the AG declined to forward the request.

“Further, even if the challenged recommendations are set aside, the decisions of the cabinet may not be set aside without an order of the High Court,” their lawsuit said.

The pair also raise the question of whether a future government could rescind a decision that, they claim, was procedurally flawed from the outset.

West said it was the listing of the motion in the Parliament that concerned him the most, since he said it “indicated that the cabinet was going to accept the recommendations to downgrade the salaries of the director and deputy director of the Police Complaints Authority.”

He said the cabinet had the final authority to determine and vary their salaries, terms and conditions.

Solomon-Baksh said the SRC’s recommendations had the potential of placing her in the “unenviable” position of receiving no real salary increase if she were to be appointed director, since the adjustment was $130 less than what she earned at the time.

West and Solomon-Baksh argued that the SRC failed to properly consult them, breaching their legitimate expectation of input before changes to their terms. They said during the 2013 review process, the SRC invited feedback through written submissions and oral presentations before finalising salary adjustments.

By contrast, the 117th and 120th reports involved no consultation with PCA leadership. The 117th report, laid in Parliament in February 2024, proposed salary reductions, 12.5 per cent for the director and 13.3 per cent for the deputy director, retroactive to April 1, 2020. The cabinet ultimately rejected that report owing to anomalies.

Then Finance Minister Colm Imbert had criticised the 117th report, saying it stemmed from a flawed decade-long job evaluation.

The SRC’s subsequent 120th report proposed slightly higher figures than those in the 117th report, $37,005 for the director and $31,954 for the deputy, but still below current earnings.

In January 2025, West twice wrote to Armour, raising objections and inquiring about the cabinet’s stance. With no reply, they filed for judicial review on January 23.

Anthony Bullock and Imran Ali also represent the two PCA directors, while Tamara Toolsie also appears for the SRC.