Cadet Force captain to advance lawsuit over promotion

A High Court judge has ruled that a cadet officer’s claim challenging the Cadet Force’s failure to promote him to the rank of major can proceed.

Justice Frank Seepersad on June 23 dismissed an attempt by the State to have Capt Namlyn Dipnarine’s lawsuit struck out.

In his lawsuit, filed in February, Dipnarine alleged he was unfairly overlooked during promotions announced on October 31, 2024. He is seeking judicial review of the decision.

In its application, attorneys for the State, who represent the Commandant of the Cadet Force, the Committee of the Cadet Force, the Attorney General and the Permament Secretary of the Ministry of National Security, applied to have the case dismissed, arguing that Dipnarine waited too long to file, failed to exhaust internal complaint channels and that his case did not merit judicial review.

However, Seepersad rejected each argument.

In his ruling, the judge said applications under the Judicial Review Act must be filed in three months of the decision being challenged.

In Dipnarine’s case, since the promotions took place on October 31, 2024, and the judicial review application was filed on January 29, it was well within the required timeframe.

Seepersad also ruled that the Cadet Force Standing Orders require complaints to pass through a chain of command but in this case, the process was not “convenient, beneficial, or practicably available” to Dipnarine.

The evidence showed that Dipnarine contacted the Commandant in February 2024 to raise concerns about how his performance reports were being handled but received no response. This, the Court said, justified bypassing further internal appeals.

“The claimant’s unchallenged evidence was that he awaited a response to his complaint and nothing was forthcoming.

“The claimant’s case was that months passed by and he saw that promotions took place and that he was not promoted.

“This evidence is critical to the disposition of the issue of alternative remedies. It amply demonstrates that the claimant did informally complain to his Commandant and was not been able to obtain any redress or assistance at all in dealing with his concerns,” the judge said.

“Given that the claimant has complained to his Commandant to no avail, and an appeal to the Permanent Secretary is not automatic, the claimant will have to cross the hurdle of appealing to two official channels before getting to the Permanent Secretary.”

In rejecting the State’s position that the claim was not exceptional, Seepersad ruled that the Cadet Force played a vital role in national security and that fair and transparent promotion practices were essential.

“Issues touching and concerning the criteria for promotions to particular posts in that body are therefore of grave public concern. Without the establishment and oversight in the application of such criteria, there is the deleterious potential of promotions taking place within the Cadet Force which reek of arbitrariness and or unfairness.

“The court has an overarching obligation to ensure that promotions are not made in a manner which violates fundamental rights,” the judge said. “Due process must always prevail.”

The State was also ordered to pay Dipnarine’s legal costs.

The matter will now proceed to trial in October. Attorneys Arden Williams and Mariah Ramrattan represent Dipnarine while Natoya Moore, Raquel Le Blanc, Savitri Maharaj and Nikita Ali represent the defendants.