PM appeals judge's ruling on ex-diplomat

A COURT of law is not competent to second guess a political policy decision of a prime minister in the appointment of an ambassador or the revocation of that appointment, lead counsel for Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley has submitted in defence of a decision to revoke the appointment of career diplomat Eden Charles as former deputy permanent representative to the United Nations (UN).

The Prime Minister appealed the ruling of High Court judge, Justice Frank Seepersad who, in July, last year, granted Charles permission to advance his judicial review claim against Rowley and his Cabinet.

Charles, of Union Hall, Cross Crossing, is claiming that Rowley and his Cabinet acted unfairly when they decided to revoke his appointment as ambassador in September 2016.

Presiding over the appeal were Justices Allan Mendonca, Prakash Moosai and Judith Jones, who have reserved their decision.

In submissions before them, Senior Counsel Reginald Armour, who represent Rowley and the Cabinet, said in this case, a political decision was not reviewable by the courts.

He said section 135 of the Constitution gave the prime minister distinct powers to appoint or revoke the appointment of ambassadors or high commissioners or anyone who represents this country abroad.

“This is an inherently political decision a court of law is not competent to second guess.”

He maintained that the revocation of an appointment in accordance with section 135 quintessentially gave the prime minister the latitude to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Armour said the judge misled himself and erred in law when he entertained issues not before him in granting Charles leave.

He also said there can be no legitimate entitlement to hold on to the office of ambassador or high commissioner. He pointed to the official policy in the case of career diplomats they will return to their substantive positions in the civil service once their term in office are completed.

In his lawsuit, Charles is also claiming that the decision is “flawed and defective” as Rowley failed to consult with him and provide details or reasons when the decision was made.

He is also contending that he had a legitimate expectation to maintain his rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary after the completion of his stint at the UN, as he claimed that was the Government’s policy in the past.

His attorney, Devesh Maharaj said Charles was not resisting his transfer or having to revert back to his substantive position. He did, however, point out that all career diplomats retain their position of ambassador after their tour of duty.

“What was he singled out?” Maharaj said the issues in contention would best be ventilated at trial.

Charles is also seeking a declaration that his constitutional rights were infringed and that the decision was illegal and made in bad faith.

Charles was appointed to the post in March 2012 under the People’s Partnership administration.