Tag: Jagdeo Singh

DCP to be cross-examined in promotion lawsuit

ATTORNEYS for Insp Mark Hernandez, the former head of the Special Operations Response Team (SORT), will cross-examine top police officials as part of a legal challenge to the promotion process for assistant superintendents.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the order on December 3, in Hernandez’s lawsuit scrutinising the fairness of the assessments.

The judge allowed limited questioning of Natasha George, the deputy commissioner in charge of administration, saying there was a need to hear her testimony directly.

Attorneys were also granted permission to question Dr Anthony Watkins, head of Odyssey Consult Inc, the consultancy firm managing the promotion process, on related procedural concerns.

Seepersad said there was no undue prejudice in allowing the cross-examinations, despite objections from attorney Gerald Ramdeen.

Hernandez will also be subject to questioning from the commissioner’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Rishi Dass.

Cross-examinations are scheduled for January 6, 2025, with the judge expecting to give a ruling by mid-February.

Previously, the judge had hoped to give a decision in December, but this was delayed by numerous applications.

This still means the promotion to that rank cannot take place until the court gives its final decision. There is currently an injunction stopping the commissioner from continuing the process for some 169 inspectors for the rank of ASP.

In October, the judge joined Odyssey and the representative body for second-division officers, the Police Service Social and Welfare Association (TTPSSWA), in the lawsuit.

Hernandez’s lawsuit disputes the procedural integrity of the promotion assessment. It also questions the process’s fairness, transparency and adherence to police service regulations.

His attorneys, Ramdeen, Jagdeo Singh, Dayadai Harripaul and Nerissa Bala, contend the process failed to follow proper guidelines and deprived qualified officers of fair advancement opportunities.

In an affidavit, the association’s president, ASP Gideon Dickson, said members asked the association to intervene, as they want the promotion exercise completed before some of them reach the compulsory retirement age of 55 in the coming months.

Dickson said the association was not seeking to derail the case, but wanted to participate because the matter directly touches the interests of its members.

He said the last promotion exercise for ASPs took place in late 2018, and the six-year delay was “unreasonable and inordinate.”

Dickson said the stagnation in promoting inspectors has contributed to “an alarming attrition and brain drain” in the police, since second-division officers retire at 55 and first-division officers at 60.

He also said some members have completed the 2024 assessment process, and their advancement was being stymied. From membership feedback, he said they were satisfied the 2024 process, despite the concerns raised, was “fair, transparent and lawful.”

“The TTPSSWA stands for fairness, transparency, accountability for all its members and as such will not sit idly by as a casual observer if we consider those fundamentals to be at risk irrespective of status, socio-economic group or creed.”

His colleague Insp Veneta Weaver-Ali, of the White Collar Crime Unit, made a similar complaint. She is represented by Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh, Keston Lewis, Savitri Samaroo and Vashisht Seepersad.

UNC: Put ankle bracelets on all lawbreakers to reduce crime

ATTORNEY Jagdeo Singh is advocating for the placing of electronic bracelets on every lawbreaker, as an effective tool to crime reduction.

As a panellist at the UNC Town Hall meeting on Justice Reform at the Barataria Community Centre on November 25, Singh made the case for “placing an electronic bracelet on every person charged with an offence and on bail, and to modify the terms of bail to prevent the accused from consulting with known criminals.

“Statistics show that most serious and violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders and this would result in an overnight reduction in crime.”

Being able to monitor the offenders, he said, could be a deterrent to committing crimes.

Also on the panel were attorneys Devesh Maharaj and San Juan/Barataria MP Saddam Hosein, who both spoke out on the critical state of crime and called for a number of measures, including better equipping of the police and reform of both the prison and court system.

The panellists discussed shortcomings of the justice system, ways government can deal with gender-based violence, a backlog of 40,000 cases in the courts, the lack of acceptable DNA testing facilities, the absence of halfway houses to reintegrate ex-prisoners into society and the absence of support for thousands of victims of serious crime.

They also spoke of 4,444 complaints of physical and sexual abuse of children; the 575 murders in 2024 to date; the low murder-detection rate of eight per cent, which they said allowed murderers to walk freely in society; and the long times it takes for relatively simple matters such as traffic tickets, land judgements, child maintenance or small commercial disputes to be determined or even heard by the courts.

The group also suggested increasing the number of criminal courts, currently under 15, to deal with more than 600 pending murder indictments; changing legislation for automatic good behaviour of prisoners; passing a time limit-law, such as exists in the UK, where a judge has a specific time to deliver a judgment on hearing a case; as well as restarting mediation and alternative dispute-resolution mechanism for matters to be settled without reaching the courts.

Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who presided over the meeting, speaking on the slow pace of the court system, said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” She said it was a fundamental problem for democracy and rule of law which a UNC government would fix.

Saying marijuana use had an adverse effect on a person’s mental health, Persad-Bissessar proposed raising the legal age for gambling and marijuana use to 25 and over.

The recommendations are among proposals contained in the UNC’s 2025 general election manifesto, as well as modernising prisons, and using intelligence services for crime-fighting, “and not for spying on political opponents.”

On salary increases proposed in the 120th Report of the Salaries and Review Commission, Persad-Bissessar said she wanted none of that.

“I’m waiting to see what the government does. They have laid the 120th SRC report in the Parliament. There’s been a lot of noise about it in the public domain because it gives to the Prime Minister his highest ever raise, if he accepts it. This is the first time in the history of our country that the Prime Minister – if they accept that report – would be paid more than the President. So I’m watching and waiting to see what happens.

“But I will say this. I do not believe the Prime Minister should get an increase at this time. I do not believe the President should get an increase at this time.

“I do not believe that Kamla Persad-Bissessar should get an increase at this time. No, no! Now is not a time, when you’re offering people one and two and four per cent.

“It is obscene. It is obscene. It is disrespectful at this time.”

Ex-SORT officer challenges continued suspension

A police officer has been permitted to challenge his continued suspension almost three years ago.

At the time of his suspension in January 2022, PC Mikhail Gonzales was assigned to the now defunct Special Operations Response Team (SORT). His suspension took place around the time of an investigation into the deaths of Andrew Morris and Joel Balcon who were suspected of kidnapping and murdering Andrea Bharatt in 2021.

However, months earlier, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) had completed an investigation into the matter and no action was taken against him.

Despite this, Gonzales remains on suspension. He was granted leave by Justice Frank Seepersad on October 17, and the matter will come up for case management on November 8.

In his lawsuit, Gonzales said, “I have been on suspension for the past two years and nine months and in all good conscience, I can no longer continue to remain on suspension, as a member of the TTPS, while the citizens of this country face an onslaught by the criminal element that has led to the unprecedented state of criminality and fear throughout my country.”

Gonzales said he was also forced to file the lawsuit after his repeated attempts for reinstatement were denied. He is seeking several declarations including an order to quash the decision to suspend him and compensation.

He said when he received his notice of suspension from then acting commissioner Mc Donald Jacob, it was disheartening and demoralising. It directed him to cease duties, continue to receive full pay, return his kit and report to the senior superintendent in the Eastern Division monthly.

Gonzales said he did so but each time he reported to the station, he said was met with “ridicule and contempt.”

“My situation is unique to the point that I am unable to complete some of title columns of the said register that I am made to sign such as: offence, postponement date, charging officer’ for the simple reason that I have never been charged for any offence.”

He also pointed out that at the time of his suspension, the PCA had already completed its investigation and disseminated its findings to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“I could not understand how I and was singled out from among all of the officers who were involved in this operation (Andrea Bharatt search and rescue) to be suspended.

“There were more than thirty law enforcement officers from all the different units involved in this operation and only certain persons from the Special Operations Response Team were identified to be issued suspension notices without being provided with the basis upon which the notices were issued.

“Examination of the notices will reveal that nowhere in the notice was there identified the factual foundation that led the commissioner to believe that I was in any way involved in the deaths of the two suspects in the kidnapping and murder of this innocent young woman.”

Gonzales said his suspension did not identify an allegation against him.

He also said he has not been told by the PCA of any act on his part in relation to the death of the suspects.

“I have not been informed by the Commissioner that any recommendation has been made by the PCA in relation to me whether to invoke disciplinary proceedings or for criminal proceedings to be instituted at the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Gonzales said if there is a report on the reason for his suspension, he wants to see it.

“The report of the PCA was available to the Commissioner of Police at the time of issuing the notice of suspension but no reference was made to the findings of the PCA to justify my suspension.

“I have never been interviewed by any member of the PCA relative to their investigation neither have I been interviewed by any member of the TTPS relative to any investigation into the deaths of the suspects in the kidnapping and murder of Andrea Bharatt.”

Gonzales said since the PCA’s investigation has ended, he cannot understand the basis for his continued suspension.

“I have been on suspension since the 12th January, 2022 and to date no disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against me despite the PCA having stated publicly that its final report was disseminated to Commissioner of Police.

“To date the I have not been charged with any criminal offence arising out of the investigation into the deaths of Andrew Morris and Joel Balcon who were suspects in the murdered of Andrea Bharatt.

“I do not wish to continue to be on suspension at this time when our country needs officers like myself to stand against the criminal element and provide a level of protection where the citizens of this country could feel safe.

“I believe that myself and the other members of the Special Operations Response Team that were suspended were treated unfairly by the actions of the commissioner.”

Gonzales is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Gerald Ramdeen, Dayadai Harripaul and Nerisa Bala.

SporTT official admits: Ex-CEO, directors not accused of LifeSport corruption

NONE of the 13 ex-board members of the Sport Company of TT (SporTT) or its former CEO is accused of corruption or personally benefiting from the controversial LifeSport programme.

SporTT’s corporate secretary Arlene George made this admission on September 11 when she returned to face questions from the ex-directors’ and CEO’s attorneys.

She was being questioned by attorney Anthony Vieira, SC, who said he adopted the points raised by attorneys Fyard Hosein, SC, and Jagdeo Singh on the first day of the trial of SporTT’s negligence claim against the 14.

SporTT’s claim of negligence is against its former CEO John Mollenthiel and ex-directors Sebastian Paddington, Chlea Lamsee-Ebanks, Reynold Bala, Morris Blanc, Nisa Dass, Anly Gopeesingh, Sabrenah Khayyam, Cheemattee Martin, Matthew Quamina, Annan Ramnansingh, Kent Samlal, Harnarine Seeram Singh and Milton Siboo over a $34 million contract to eBeam Interact Ltd for literacy and numeracy services.

George said she had no vested interest in the outcome of the case, but admitted it affected the lives and reputation of the 14.

She said she was there to give “honest and fair evidence.”

In response to Vieira’s questions, she confirmed there was no corruption allegation against the 14, nor was there an allegation they acted outside of their powers, resulting in personal financial gain at the company’s expense, nor had they acted dishonestly.

She admitted the crux of the claim was to get back the $34 million, and a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the former directors and CEO.

George said she couldn’t say if the LifeSport issue was one of political interest, and said she did not find it necessary to contact former sport minister Anil Roberts for answers, as he was alleged to be intimately involved in the programme.

George was questioned extensively on the state enterprises performance manual, with which agencies such as SporTT are under an obligation to comply, although it is not a feature of the Companies Act.

She was also accused of providing “select imformation” in SporTT’s claim, since she was questioned by several attorneys on steps she took to get information from outside the company, including from the ministry and the LifeSport committee.

When the trial began on Tuesday, SporTT’s attorney Colin Kangaloo, SC, admitted the lawsuit was “one of documents.”

“The documents tell the full story.”

He urged Rahim to look at the documentation provided “and see what they say to determine the standard of the behaviour of the directors.”

He said the 14 breached their fiduciary duties and were negligent, as there was no justification for approving an eBeam sole-select contract. He also said all 14 had a duty of care which they breached when they did not thoroughly question the contract.

“No one picked up on the errors (in the contract) or asked questions.”

He said none of the directors saw the $34 million contract before it was entered or knew of its terms.

On August 21, SporTT was successful in its claim for restitution against eBeam for the failed $34million contract.

SporTT brought both cases after the programme was shut down by prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in July 2014. It claimed it should be reimbursed the $34 million it paid to eBeam and its now-deceased owner Adolphus Daniel to administer the numeracy and literacy and interactive technology components of the occupational skills training aspect of the programme.

It alleged that eBeam did not provide the services for the programme, which aimed to transition unemployed young men to responsible adulthood by providing sport training, occupational skills training and job placement.

In the case before Rahim, the company contends Mollenthiel and the former board members should be held liable for entering into the contract.

In earlier cross-examination, George said the board should have “asked more questions.”

The trial continues on Thursday with the testimony of an expert witness.

Also appearing for the ex-directors are Rishi Dass, SC, Karina Singh, Roger Kawalsingh, Nicole de Verteuil-Milne, Neil Bisnath, Lydia Mendonca, Richard Jagai,Kamini Persaud-Maraj, and Dharmendra Punwassee.

Accounting ‘expert’ testifies at LifeSport trial

AN accounting expert came under scrutiny for his report on the financial statements of the Sport Company of TT (SporTT) on the third day of the trial against its former CEO and 13 ex-board members.

The cases arises out of the failed LifeSport programme and a $34 million contract to eBeam Interact Ltd.

Dwayne Rodriguez-Seijas, an assurance partner with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, testified at the trial before Justice Ricky Rahim on September 12. Rodriguez-Seijas was deemed an expert witness and had been asked to “read and interpret” SporTT’s financial statements from September 2007-2015.

He admitted that based on his review, SporTT was not a “for-profit company.”

He also said for the entire period under consideration, it never declared a loss or made a profit.

Rodriguez-Seijas had been asked to prepare a report based on five questions relating to SporTT financial statements.

He was asked to say whether the audited statements noted SporTT suffered no loss in respect of any of its activities during the review period and if not, why not.

He was also asked if the company had any financial exposure as a result of the transactions complained of in its lawsuit against the ex-directors; whether the alleged liabilities relating to loans shown in SporTT’s financial statements were a fiction and did not meet the recognition criteria for financial liabilities; and whether two $17 million payments were reflected in the financial statements, and if not, was there any reason why they would not be reflected there.

On September 12, attorneys Anil Maraj and Jagdeo Singh questioned him for four ex-directors.

In response to questions, Rodriguez-Seijas agreed SporTT relied on a mix of funding from projects and government grants. He said the statements reflected some loans, but a significant contribution of government funding.

“My understanding is that expenses born by the company are funded by direct financing or government grants.”

Asked if SporTT had a “free slate” to use the money it received as it wanted, Rodriguez-Seijas said there were conditions attached to government-funded projects, although from looking at the statements he could not say what the conditions would have been. He said if the government was the guarantor (of a loan facility), then it would set the conditions.

Questioned about the two $17 million payments under the LifeSport programme, he said the financial statements had little information specific to those two payments and he did not do an independent exercise to identify the source.

“I did review the financial information provided to me and the content of the various witness statements.”

He said there were notes on the borrowing for the LifeSport programme.

“I did review the source documents included in the witness statements shared with me. I do not know if the money was paid out of a loan or general subvention to the company.”

Rodriguez-Seijas also admitted he did not have access to all supporting documents or interviews with the company’s management and that his scope of work could have changed if he had got supporting source documents, but maintained, “I was asked to review financial statements and witness statements. Further information could have led me to a further conclusion.”

Rodriguez-Seijas also said since SporTT was named as the borrower of a loan, the company would have been legally obligated to repay that loan.

“Although I have not seen the loan documents…I only know what was noted in the financial statements.”

He was also questioned about two loans from First Citizens Bank which were repaid in 2014.

SporTT’s lawsuit refers to loans between eBeam and SporTT which, it has alleged, never had board approval.

It also claimed that ex-CEO John Mollenthiel and former board members should be held liable for entering into the contract.

The trial continues on September 13, when some of the ex-directors are expected to give evidence.

Representing SporTT are Colin Kangaloo, SC, John Lee and Stephanie Moe.

The ex-directors are represented by Fyard Hosein, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Anthony Vieira, Neil Bisnath, Karina Singh, Roger Kawalsingh, Nicole de Verteuil-Milne, Kamini Persaud-Maraj, Richard Jagai, Sasha Sukram and Dharmendra Punwasee.

About the case:

SporTT’s claim of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty is against its former CEO John Mollenthiel and ex-directors Sebastian Paddington, Chlea Lamsee-Ebanks, Reynold Bala, Morris Blanc, Nisa Dass, Anly Gopeesingh, Sabrenah Khayyam, Cheemattee Martin, Matthew Quamina, Annan Ramnansingh, Kent Samlal, Harnarine Seeram Singh and Milton Siboo.

Trial in SporTT’s $34m LifeSport lawsuit against ex-directors begins

THE SPORT Company of TT (SporTT) is still pursuing its claim of negligence against its former CEO and 13 ex-board members arising out of the failed LifeSport programme and a $34 million contract to eBeam Interact Ltd.

On September 10, the trial began before Justice Ricky Rahim in a hybrid hearing at the Waterfront Judicial Centre, Port of Spain, and virtually.

SporTT’s corporate secretary Arlene George was the first witness in the hot seat and was cross-examined extensively by Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein and Jagdeo Singh, who represent two of the ex-directors.

In May 2023, the Appeal Court gave SporTT the green light to pursue the negligence claim over the failed LifeSport programme and the relief for the repayment of $34 million to eBeam Interact Ltd for literacy and numeracy services.

This followed a ruling by Rahim in November 2022 which struck out a major portion of SporTT’s lawsuit because “it could not be sustained in the absence of proof of actual loss or damage.”

He also struck out a claim for equitable compensation of $34 million which SporTT was seeking, concerning the eBeam contract signed by the former board in June 2013.

What was left for the trial was the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty. The Appeal Court overturned this.

On August 21, SporTT was successful in its claim for restitution against eBeam for the failed $34million contract.

SporTT brought both cases after the programme was shut down by then-prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in July 2014. It claimed it should be reimbursed the $34 million it paid to eBeam and its now-deceased owner Adolphus Daniel to administer the numeracy and literacy and interactive technology components of the occupational skills training aspect of the programme.

It also claimed Mollenthiel and the former board members should be held liable for entering into the contract.

In her judgment, Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell rejected SporTT’s claims for breach of contract, as she pointed out that the contract did not sufficiently identify the services eBeam was required to perform.

However, she ruled that SporTT was entitled to restitution, as eBeam only provided nominal services, including procuring equipment valued at $4 million.

As part of the case, SporTT also claimed eBeam was overpaid, as the contract was for providing services at 38 centres, when in fact there were only 33 such locations.

While the judge upheld that aspect of the case, she said it was not entitled to an additional $4,473,684.20 in compensation, as this was already covered under the restitution award.

SporTT’s lead attorney Colin Kangaloo, SC, said the ruling in the eBeam case had no bearing on the company’s lawsuit against its former directors.

In an opening statement, Kangaloo said the case was “one of documents.”

“The documents tell the full story.”

He admitted SporTT did not have any witness from back in 2013 to give evidence, but urged Rahim to look at the documentation provided “and see what they say to determine the standard of the behaviour of the directors.”

He said the 14 breached their fiduciary duties and were negligent, as there was no justification for approving the eBeam sole-select contract. He also said all 14 had a duty of care which they breached when they did not thoroughly question the contract. “No one picked up on the errors (in the contract) or asked questions.” He said none of the directors saw the $34 million contract before it was entered or knew of the terms.

“I have it here. You can see it – but nobody looked at it. They went ahead and executed the contract for $34 million, in breach of their own protocols and regulations.”

He said when the two tranches of $17 million were paid, they raised no concern and went ahead because of legal advice they had received.

However, Kangaloo said, “They cannot be protected, because had they exercised proper due diligence, they would not have entered the contract in the first place…”

He also said they could not indemnify themselves with the justification that the decision that the contract should be a sole-select contract came from the Ministry of Sport.

“They needed to determine if what they did was harmful to the company or caused damage.

“They just decided the ministry wanted this, so we are going to do it without consideration of the contract.

“They take the position to execute the ministry policy but when things went bad, they then considered to get advice and investigate.

“Why were they now thinking of the harm to the company? They should have done so from the start.”

Kangaloo also maintained that some of the directors should not be allowed to succeed with their defence that they acted honestly and reasonably and were exonerated by the Companies Act.

“They were reckless, bordering on incompetence.”

In her testimony, George admitted a LifeSport committee, appointed by the Minister of Sport, authorised SporTT’s chairman to pay the committee.

Singh questioned her extensively on her attempts to get evidence from outside SporTT. She said she did not communicate with the then-chairman of the committee, former head of the public service and PS in the Office of the Prime Minister Reynold Cooper.

George also admitted she made no enquiries from the ministry, but relied on documents in SporTT’s possession.

She was also questioned about board minutes, one of which allegedly showed the Cabinet changed the requirements to make it easier to access LifeSport funding and draw down on it.

George admitted the LifeSport committee was not part of SporTT, as it reported directly to the ministry.

She also admitted whatever SporTT paid, it would get back from the ministry.

George did not agree with Hosein’s assertion that the Cabinet and the ministry were satisfied that work was done on the contract, so the $17 million could be paid.

She admitted that SporTT was a payment facilitator and should have been involved in the process of authorising payment when everyone – including the ministries of sport and finance – was satisfied work was done.

George returns on Wednesday to continue her evidence.

‘Spongebob’ loses appeal against death sentence

A Laventille man who was convicted of killing a Belmont man more than a decade ago has lost his appeal against his conviction and death sentence.

Mekeal “Spongebob” Antoine was 19 when he shot and killed Brent “Chariot” Samuel on May 14, 2010.

He was convicted by a jury on July 31, 2020, and Justice Carla Brown-Antoine sentenced him to hang.

Antoine raised four grounds of appeal, which were all unsuccessful, before Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and Ronnie Boodoosingh.

Wilson wrote the unanimous decision and upheld his conviction and sentence.

The prosecution’s case was that Samuel and other men were liming at McKai Lands just before 11 pm when a white car pulled up near Christmas Bar on Belmont Valley Road.

A witness who was on his way to buy a phone card at the bar saw three men get out of the car. They had guns and wore bulletproof vests. The witness, who was robbed of a gold chain, recognised his assailant as someone who had robbed him before. Although he did not know him by name, a friend told him Antoine’s nickname was “Spongebob” because of his appearance.

He also identified Antoine in a police line-up.

Samuel was shot four times with a shotgun. The man who was robbed jumped into a drain and ran off and another man was shot in the foot.

The bar’s owner also saw the car pull up and the men in bulletproof vests. He also heard gunshots.

Police found shotgun cartridges and .45-calibre ammunition at the scene of the shooting.

At the trial, the State did not provide direct evidence on who shot Samuel but advanced its case on the basis that Antoine and the others acted together.

Antoine did not testify at his trial, but his defence was denial. He claimed he was not at the scene and that the main witness who identified him was either lying or mistaken.

At the appeal, Antoine argued the judge failed to leave the jury with the option of felony murder (death occurring in the commission of a violent arrestable offence), since the evidence showed there was a robbery when Samuel was shot.

However, the State argued the robbery had taken place first, and there was no evidence Samuel’s killing was linked to the robbery.

Wilson said the Criminal Law Act amended the felony murder rule, which leaves it open to an accused being convicted of murder even if it was done without the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm while committing a violent arrestable offence. She said there was no evidence the robbery took place at the same time as the murder.

Antoine also complained about the identification evidence, the joint-enterprise direction of the judge to the jury depriving him of a manslaughter verdict and the bad character evidence allowed at the trial. He had previously been convicted of possessing a firearm.

Wilson said Brown-Antoine gave impeccable directions.

Antoine was represented by Jagdeo Singh and assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal represented the State.

Moonilal gets extension to file defence in EMBD cartel-claim lawsuit

FORMER Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal has been granted a 28-day extension to file his defence in the Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd’s cartel-claim lawsuit against him and several other contractors and former EMBD executives.

Justice Frank Seepersad granted the extension on May 14. Moonilal and the others had applied for an extension to file their defences in the multi-million dollar lawsuit against them pending the outcome of a special leave application at the Privy Council.

However, only Moonilal was successful since attorneys for the EMBD and the judge agreed there were issues “intricately tied” to the claims against him so “no useful purpose would be achieved if the rug is pulled relative to the contractors’ claims as it will have an impact on the case as it relates to the defendant.”

Moonilal’s defence now becomes due 28 days after the Privy Council rules on the challenge raised by the contractors, TN Ramnauth, Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Ltd, Fides Ltd and KallCo on April 30.

No date has yet been set by the Privy Council. Initially, he and the others had until March 20 to file his defence.

The contractors filed the special leave application after they were denied conditional leave by the Court of Appeal.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Seepersad raised concerns about the slow process of the case. He said it was the oldest matter on his docket.

“That is not an acceptable position …”

In earlier submissions, Jason Mootoo, SC, pointed out that while his client acknowledged the case against Moonilal was hinged on the contractors’ claim, the EMBD had no objection to his application for an extension.

However, he said with former divisional manager Madhoo Balroop and engineer Andrew Walker, the EMBD’s case was independent of the others.

“Let these defences come in.”

The judge agreed and ordered both men to file their defences by June 28.

Walker’s attorney Jayanti Lutchmedial-Ramdial said her client had prepared most of its defence and could have it done by the end of June, although two of the projects challenged in the appeal were connected to her client.

“If the appeal is successful, our argument is not that we cannot answer but it is a question of time and resources…But, I am prepared to file a defence and amend later on.”

Attorney Leon Kalicharan and Kelvin Ramkissoon who represent Balroop said their position was the same, and they had hoped to wait on the special leave application, but their client was prepared to file their defence by the end of June.

Attorney Roger Kawalsingh said his client, Namalco, filed its defence on March 20.

The matter has been adjourned to October 7. There was no order for costs on the extension applications since all the attorneys said they understood the need for the proper management of the case.

The matter before the Privy Council concerns a bid by some of the contractors to strike out the claims against them. They argue the Appeal Court misinterpreted and misapplied well-established law governing pleadings, the requirements of a party to plead fraud, dishonesty and bad faith, attribution of knowledge of companies in torts of unlawful means conspiracy, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance and well-established principles of law governing the duty of the court to strike out a claim of unlawful means conspiracy which does not plead all the elements of the cause of action.

In their ruling in January, Justices of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton, Peter Rajkumar and Vasheist Kokaram upheld a 2020 decision of Justice James Aboud to allow the EMBD’s case to proceed. In August 2020, Aboud dismissed preliminary applications by the five contractors to have the EMBD detail allegations against them so they could fairly mount their defence, or strike out the claims.

The substantive lawsuit centres around 12 contracts for the rehabilitation of roads and infrastructure granted to five contractors before the September 2015 general election.

The contractors had initiated proceedings against the state-owned special purpose company for the almost $200 million balance owed on their respective contracts.

The EMBD countersued the contractors, claiming they conspired with Moonilal, Parmassar, Balroop, and Walker to corruptly obtain the contracts.

The contractors are represented by separate teams of attorneys including Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Jagdeo Singh, and Karina Singh. Michael Rooplal represents Moonilal. Also representing the EMBD are David Phillips, KC, Tamara Toolsie and Savitri Sookraj-Beharry.

Senior Trinidad and Tobago judge to preside over Turks and Caicos Appeal Court

THE JUDICIARY’S second most senior judge has bid goodbye to the court where she has presided for almost three decades.

However, Justice of Appeal Alice Yorke-Soo Hon is not hanging up her robe but will take up the position of president of the Court of Appeal in the Turks and Caicos on April 27.

On April 24, she presided over the last of her appeals at the Court of Appeal, where she was praised for her contribution to the jurisprudence and development of judicial education, particularly in criminal law.

Leading the plaudits was Chief Justice Ivor Archie.

“This is the last time I will have the pleasure of presiding over a panel on which Justice of Appeal Yorke-Soo Hon will be sitting.

“She is leaving us to embark on a new stage of her professional career…I want to express my gratitude and that of the Judiciary and the people of Trinidad and Tobago for her service over the years.

“She has contributed not only to the jurisprudence and work of the court but the development of judicial education,” Archie said, as he also recognised her work in the development of a criminal-bench book for judges. Yorke-Soo Hon chaired the bench book committee.

“We now have a criminal bench book largely because of her.

“I want to assure her that she will be missed.”

Yorke-Soo Hon’s colleagues Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed and Malcolm Holdip also said their farewells.

“This is the last time we, as colleagues, get to sit together,” Mohammed said. He praised her for her excellence at the criminal bar for over a decade before joining the bench as a High Court judge in 1997 and her conduct of “difficult and dangerous trials” with dexterity and skill or any appellate reversal.

At the Court of Appeal, he said Yorke-Soo Hon authored judgments that progressed criminal law, evidence and practice, describing her as a widely recognised leading criminal-law specialist in the English-speaking Caribbean.

“Such is the calibre of your work. Your grasp of the nuance and complex arguments in criminal law and your ability to deconstruct them…your legacy is significant,” he said.

On a more personal note, Mohammed said she was not only a mentor to many but to him.

“I thank you for showing me the ropes. The loss to our jurisdiction is heavy but we understand you must transition to another phase …”

Holdip spoke of her ability, humility and mentorship. “I have known Alice for 40-something years…it was a wonder to see how Alice was able to evolve through the criminal justice system.”

He thanked her for allowing her intellect to guide all legal practitioners and future generations but said although the pace of work in the Turks and Caicos might be slower, “She is going to enjoy it.”

Criminal defence attorneys Keith Scotland and Jagdeo Singh also paid tribute to Yorke-Soo Hon, who, in turn, praised both of them. Singh appeared to be close to tears, while Scotland was observed blushing while she spoke.

“It is the sad moment you are leaving this jurisdiction. The other jurisdiction has been enriched,” Scotland said, as he recalled doing his in-service with Yorke-Soo Hon. He also remembered her advice after winning two cases: “Not every day will be like this. We give thanks when it is and when it isn’t.”

He also learned of the fellowship Lawyers for Jesus, which she led for many years.

Singh said Yorke-Soo Hon has been a role model and mentor for four decades.

To both attorneys, she said she was proud of their achievements and growth as evidenced by their submissions.

Assistant Director of Public Prosecution Giselle Heller and special prosecutor Wayne Rajbansie also spoke. Heller said a brief prayer, since she had not previously appeared before the judge, while Rajbansie said he learned to be humble in victory and gracious in defeat from her.

For her part, Yorke-Soo Hon said it was a “long journey.

“It is sad for me too, but one must do what one has to do,” she said of her new endeavour.

She thanked the Chief Justice for his support.

“You have been a mentor in many ways….You have such a brilliant mind.”

She admitted that while it was a little more challenging to sit on a panel with him, she was happy she was ending her stint on the bench in Trinidad and Tobago with his input and challenge.

“It will spur me on to dig deeper. I thank you for your leadership and support.”

Yorke-Soo Hon has acted as chief justice and was appointed to the Court of Appeal in October 2008. She also tutored at the Hugh Wooding Law School in criminal practice and procedure, ethics rights and obligations of the legal profession. She was a member of the board of the Judicial Education Institute and a fellow of the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute. She also holds a diploma in training judicial trainers from the University College of London.

She has also chaired other committees which published the sentencing handbook, was instrumental in the implementation of the criminal procedure rules, a member of the Criminal Justice Reform Committee (JURIST Project), and the chair of the Magistrates’ Benchbook Committee.

At present, Yorke-Soo Hon serves as a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Advisory Committee for the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and co-chairs the Monitoring, Evaluating and Facilitating Committee of the Needham’s Point Declaration on criminal justice reform in the Caribbean.

Court: Top cop must decide on 17 FUL applications by July

POLICE Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher has been ordered to decide on 17 FUL applications (firearm user’s licences) by 4 pm on July 22.

Justice Nadia Kangaloo made the order on March 21. Before the judge was a complaint by 17 applicants of unreasonable delay by the commissioner in deciding on their FUL applications.

They sought a series of declarations that Harewood-Christopher breached her statutory duty and her failure to decide on their applications was unreasonable, unlawful and illegal.

They also sought an order directing her to decide by July 22, which the judge granted.

In their application, the 17 – among them business owners, a pilot, a real estate developer, an engineer, and a pharmacist – said they have been waiting between 23 and 28 months for the commissioner to decide on their applications.

They all received provisional FULs after they applied and underwent the required training, receiving certificates of competence, which they submitted to the firearms section of the police service.

Their claim said they expected the commissioner to comply with the licensing regime policy and the law, but she “omitted, failed, neglected, and refused” to do her statutory duty.

While acknowledging there was no right for anyone to possess a firearm or ammunition unless licensed, their application said the need for FULs ensured only private citizens who meet the qualifying requirements could obtain a licence.

However, the claim said the commissioner’s discretion to grant a FUL after the two-phase qualifying process must be lawfully exercised. It also said the commissioner was not allowed to delay the decision.

“The arrangements of the sections and the procedural mechanism of the licensing provisions of the Firearms Act is such that the claimants having been qualified for the Provisional FUL means that the defendant was of the opinion that the claimants were not of intemperate habits or unsound mind or for some reason unfit to be entrusted with such a firearm or ammunition and/or has no good reason to hold firearm or ammunition and/or will cause harm or danger to the public…

“After the claimants having been trained and having been certified fit to hold a firearm and ammunition, there is really no good reason why the defendant can deny the claimants their FUL.”

The claim also said the 17 were concerned for their safety and that of their families and businesses because of the crime rate and increase in home invasions.

“Some of the claimants are past victims of crime and today they are unable to obtain a firearm for their safety and security.”

It also set out details of the visits by the police that are part of the qualifying process and said they were not given a reason or told of any additional investigation required to get their FULs.

The group is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh, Vashisht Seepersad and Leon Kalicharan.

Judge: Hire more state lawyers

A HIGH COURT judge has again advised the department which handles civil litigation for the State to reinvent its processes to ensure efficiency.

Justice Frank Seepersad admitted he was “perturbed” after he had to adjourn a trial of a malicious prosecution claim brought by a Princes Town businesswoman who was arrested and charged with human trafficking in 2014. The trial has now been set for May 13 and 14.

In August 2022, the judge had to advocate for changes to the understaffed state law departments when the State missed the deadline for the filing of its defence.

Alana Lagan had applied for default judgment, but the court was told some internal administrative imbroglio caused by inconsistent record-keeping led to a miscalculation of the date the defence was due.

On Monday, Seepersad was told the lead advocate for the State was ill.

“I am perturbed by what I see unfolding in the Solicitor General and Chief State Solicitor departments. It appears that these departments are acutely understaffed.”

He said it was “unfathomable” that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to retain private attorneys to represent the State, but the same resources were not being deployed internally to relieve the burden of the overworked lawyers in the state departments.

Seepersad said it was time for a critical review of the administration of these departments, since it was a waste of resources to vacate two trial days “when people are clamouring” for their day in court.

He advocated for alternative arrangements to be put in place so cases can proceed even when “unfortunate incidents” take place, since, he said, it was happening with “alarming frequency.”

The instructing attorney for the State told him 11 new officers were expected to be appointed to the Chief State Solicitor’s department, and the civil law departments also felt part of the frustration the judge expressed, as they had to wait on third parties, such as the police, to get instructions to defend lawsuits against the State.

However, Seepersad said the “tail does not wag the dog” and disciplinary action should be taken against those agents of the State if they failed to make themselves available in a timely fashion in breach of their obligations.

In her claim, Lagan is seeking compensation for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution as well as special damages. Her lawsuit says the police constantly harassed her husband after he refused to pay to have charges of possession of guns and ammunition against him dropped.

Eventually, the charges were dropped and Lagan’s husband reported the matter to the police’s Professional Standards Bureau before he was killed in St Joseph Village on May 23, 2015.

In June 2015, she was arrested for “exploiting” friends who had stayed at her home – one of whom claimed she was having an affair with Lagan’s husband – and then charged with trafficking in persons.

After 24 court appearances, the charges were eventually dropped, on July 31, 2019. Lagan also contended she had to scale down the number of burger-cart businesses she operated in south Trinidad because of the charges against her.

She is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh and Richard Jaggasar. The State is represented by Mary Davis and Nairob Smart.

Judge orders Customs to clear local courier’s containers

THE Comptroller of Customs and Excise has been ordered to clear the cargo of a local courier company.

The order was given in an injunction on February 22 by Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson in favour of Seabox Trinidad Ltd.

On February 1, Seabox Trinidad Ltd (STL) was permitted by the judge to challenge the comptroller’s decision to temporarily cease the clearance of ocean cargo at the Swissport transit shed, pending an investigation at the shed, and to refuse to allow the courier to operate in the express consignment (EC) area at the Swissport shed.

However, on February 20, STL sought the injunction after failed attempts to agree with the customs division to clear its cargo. STL is the only sea freight courier in Trinidad and Tobago.

The terms of the judge’s orders are that the comptroller has to do anything necessary to facilitate the clearance of STL’s cargo at the ABL (another bond shed) as if it were an express consignment area until further ordered by the court.

The matter will next be heard on May 8.

In its injunction application, STL said the sudden change by the comptroller was “extremely damaging” to the company’s reputation.

It also said it was losing customers daily and feared if it was not allowed to use the express consignment area, its business operations would crash, affecting hundreds of customers.

STL is an ocean freight shipping company which provides its local customers with a US address for foreign purchases. It allows customers to ship items at a lower rate than air freight.

The injunction application said the speed of delivery of shipments to customers was a pivotal factor in its business model and is only achievable because of the approval to clear its sea cargo through express consignment areas as opposed to using the procedure for clearing general ocean cargo.

The company said clearing shipments through general ocean cargo is much longer.

At the time of applying for the injunction, STL had containers at the port waiting to be cleared.

The company said in June 2020, it was approved for registration in the express consignment area and did so until November 2023, when the comptroller prohibited it. STL was told its cargo was sea freight and could not be treated as courier goods.

Certain instructions were given by the assistant comptroller in charge of ports, warehouses and outstations.

Seven days later, STL was told of an investigation at the Swissport Transit shed and that clearance of ocean cargo there had temporarily ceased.

This, the company said, delayed its shipments and caused significant distress to customers as it was the Christmas period.

However, the company said the comptroller continued to permit air freight courier companies to use the EC area at Swissport.

It also said that the alternative method of clearance was costly and unprofitable.

“The decision taken by the defendant has the effect of crippling the claimant’s business and is in defiance of logic.”

STL’s general manager Jonathan O’Connor said there were two shipments awaiting clearance and some 700 consignees were directly affected.

The courier is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Leon Kalicharan, Karina Singh and Jasmyn Seargeant.

Boat captain takes CoP to court over FUL silence

A DIEGO Martin businessman and motor launch captain is challenging the failure of Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher to decide on his application for a firearm user’s licence (FUL).

On February 15, Justice Frank Seepersad granted leave to the businessman to pursue his lawsuit against the commissioner.

In March 2021, he applied for a provisional licence because he had concerns for the safety of his family and business. He then did all the necessary training and received a certificate of competence five months later.

In June 2022, he applied for the FUL and has been waiting since.

He is now challenging the delay by the commissioner in fulfilling her statutory duties under the Firearms Act.

His lawsuit contends under section 17 of the act, the commissioner has the discretion to grant a licence and the commissioner has a non-delegable duty to decide on an application for an FUL.

“To date, the respondent has failed and/or neglected to exercise her discretion and render a decision on whether to grant or deny my application.

“An excess of one year and seven months have passed since my submission of an application for a FUL licence.”

There is no stipulated time frame for the commissioner to decide on an application nor does the act set one. However, the businessman’s lawsuit said the commissioner has not provided an update on his application nor has she provided an explanation every time he asked about its status.

He also said because he often sails TT’s waters, he is significantly exposed to criminal elements.

“The escalated crime situation in my neighbourhood and across the country, has presented risks to my business operations, my occupational duties as a captain and my home.

“My family and I felt vulnerable to the criminal elements. These factors combined create a heightened sense of fear and uncertainty for myself and my family’s safety and the ability to protect ourselves against any home invasion.”

In October 2023, a High Court judge declared there was an unreasonable delay of two years to decide on a FUL application. There are scores of similar lawsuits against the commissioner.

On January 31, Harewood-Christopher told a Joint Select Committee of Parliament that firearms user’s licences (FULs) continue to be approved on legitimate requests. She added there are currently 25,000 FUL applications awaiting review and she had approved just over 100 during her one-year tenure in office.

The businessman is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Keston Lewis and Jasmyn Sargeant.

PSC to table cops’ complaint over promotions

THE POLICE Service Commission (PSC) is expected to consider a complaint by 93 police constables about Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher’s handling of the recent promotion exercise when it sits in February.

The constables’ attorneys were told their complaint would be put before the PSC for consideration at its next statutory meeting on February 8.

On January 13, attorneys representing the 93 constables complained about the commissioner’s conduct and that of the Promotion Advisory Board in the 2023 promotion exercise for the rank of corporal.

“The PSC is empowered to make appointments on promotion and to confirm appointments and also, terminate the services of the commissioner or a deputy commissioner of police [after giving her an opportunity to be heard] on several grounds,” attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh and Leon Kalicharan said in their letter to the PSC’s chairman. The PSC is led by retired judge Judith Jones.

They say they have exhausted the pre-action process and all their enquiries on the promotions fiasco, which saw some 900 officers elevated to the rank of corporals and resulted in an apology by Harewood-Christopher, who also called for an audit of the published merit list, have gone unanswered by the top cop.

“Unfortunately, this flagrant disregard was consistent with the CoP’s state of indifference towards our clients and their rights and interests as members of the TTPS.

“It was at this stage, our clients’ disappointment plateaued and had now evolved to a feeling of hopelessness and capitulation,” the attorneys said in their letter.

On January 24, the Police Service Social and Welfare Association held a media briefing at which the issue of the recent promotion debacle was discussed.

Association president Insp Gideon Dickson said what should have been a historic process had now been tainted by inconsistencies.

He said the debacle had impacted the morale of members who were not at fault and called on the executive of the police service to “do the honourable thing” and ensure those officers, who should have been promoted and who endured the rigorous six-month interview process, are elevated in the best interest of the serving officers.

Dickson warned that because of the impact on the affected officers’ morale, the “boots on the ground” would be compromised and so to safety and security.

In their letter calling on the PSC to review the handling of the promotion process, the officers’ attorneys said it was now “untenable” for their clients to “continually subject themselves to a process and system which has consistently failed and deprived them of a procedurally fair and transparent process.”

“It is, therefore, our respectful view that in light of the plague of discrepancies contained in the merit list and the promotion list [subsequently effected], is patently compromised.”

“We find it necessary to bring these important matters to the urgent attention of the commission for their urgent action and/or response and more specifically, it calls for an investigation and the proportionate action on this long-standing current fiasco in which resolution seems to be protracted indefinitely.”

The letter said the constables were now frustrated, having lost all confidence in the process and having subjected themselves to “what ought to have been a fair and transparent process having regard to the previous prevailing challenges and failures of the CoP and PAB.

“It is unfortunate as our clients are now catapulted further into the abyss of impropriety led by the executive of the TTPS, chiefly the CoP and have now wandered into the unlawful.

“We therefore respectfully consider the supervisory and regulatory nature of the commission is now triggered in the interest of restoring some measure of integrity and accountability of a constitutional functionary in the general public interest and amongst the TTPS membership. Our clients remain hopeful in the commission’s swift action in restoring trust and confidence in the management and operations of the TTPS.”

122 constables threaten lawsuit over promotion

Another 122 police officers want the promotion of constables stopped.

They are again threatening legal action over the police service’s recent promotion exercise.

Some of the latest batch have filed proceedings challenging promotions to the rank of corporal.

On January 24, attorneys for the 122 sent a pre-action protocol letter to Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher calling for “meaningful resolution.”

They have also asked for clarity on recent statements attributed to a deputy commissioner about a “glitch” in producing a merit list.

They claim several officers who were promoted in September 2023 have been told they have to appear before DCP Ramnarine Samaroo and they suspect it is to “remove their stripes.”

The group is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh, Leon Kalicharan, Keston Lewis and Jasmyn Sargeant of Fortis Chambers.

The attorneys have given the commissioner 12 hours to stop any action relating to the 2023 promotion exercise.

“Having regard to the series of shortcomings, it is now untenable for our clients to continually subject themselves to a process and system which has consistently failed and deprived them of a procedurally fair and transparent process.

“It is therefore our respectful view that in light of the plague of discrepancies contained in the merit list and the promotion list is blatantly compromised.

“ It is regrettable that several steps were taken without accounting to the participating membership the manner in which you and those under your delegation intended to utilise significant state resources to rectify the flagrant maladministration of the promotion assessment,” the letter said.

The attorneys have asked for clarity on several issues relating to the promotion exercise, including the comparative merit list, the “glitch” and the purported revoking of stripes of the officers promoted in September.

They also want the scores of all the officers on the comparative merit list, along with other information.

The letter said the police service was an essential part of the architecture of the State, so it was of utmost importance to maintain public confidence in its integrity and management.

“Considering the publicly admitted errors and anomalies occurred in the promotional process, the credibility of the TTPS has already been undermined and its credibility is now at stake.

“There is now a duty to act in a transparent and accountable manner to negate the public’s scepticism of the legitimacy of the police promotions process and the perception of nepotism, favouritism and illegitimate actions.

“Thus, a call for urgent clarification on the aforementioned matters remains critical before any further actions/decisions are taken from an underlying flawed and tainted process.”

The letter also said the 122 officers remained faithful to the police service but had since “grown weary of the being hopeful in thought and prayer.

“However, prayers by (themselves) are not enough. Prayers do not fulfil the obligations held under the Office of the Commissioner of Police. The practice of piety in the face of injustice is synonymous (with) wilful blindness and the neglect of one’s responsibility.”

This latest threat of legal action also comes soon after 93 constables wrote to the Police Service Commission (PSC) complaining of the conduct of the commissioner and the Promotion Advisory Board in the 2023 promotion exercise, which saw some 900 officers being elevated to the rank.

Wednesday’s letter said the 2023 exercise involved a backlog of over 2,000 officers now competing for limited vacancies for corporals. A March 2023 merit list contained the names of 2,342 constables. Some 861 were promoted in September. There are reportedly 1,200 available spots for the rank.

Court: Top cop must decide on 33 FUL applications by May

THE High Court has ordered Commissioner of Police Erla Harewood-Christopher to decide on 33 applications for firearm user’s licences (FUL) by May 16.

Harewood-Christopher was declared to have breached her statutory duty as commissioner under section 17 of the Firearms Act to either grant or refuse permits to those applicants who satisfied the two-phase process and had provisional licences and certificates of competence.

In making the order, Justice Nadia Kangaloo further declared there was a delay by the commissioner in deciding on the 33 applications and her failure, neglect and continuous delay to perform her duty was unreasonable and in conflict with the policy set out by the legislation, unlawful and illegal.

The commissioner was ordered to pay the 33 applicants’ costs of their judicial review and leave applications.

Attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh, Leon Kalicharan and Vashisht Seepersad filed the 33 claims in August 2023. The applicants complained of the delay by the commissioner in deciding on their FUL applications.

Attorneys for the commissioner sought to attribute the delay to the covid19 pandemic, an audit on the firearms section of the police service, and the 50,000 applications to be processed.

However, Kangaloo did not consider those reasonable reasons, taking into account the costs associated with applying for a provisional licence and certificate of competence, the inconvenience and the length of delay – three years – since the applications were made.

Kangaloo also permitted 17 others to challenge the commissioner’s delay in deciding on their FUL applications. They are seeking the same declarations as the previous 33 applicants. In consolidating their claims, she adjourned their matter to March 21. The 50 cases came up for hearing before the judge on January 18. She granted the order for the commissioner to decide on the 33 applications while also granting leave to the 17 other applications.

In November, another High Court judge declared the commissioner’s continuing failure to decide a firearm dealer’s applications to import ammunition was unlawful, based on unreasonable and inordinate delay.

In the lawsuit before Kangaloo, the group of 33 said they applied for their FULs after receiving their provisional firearms licences, completing their training and submitting their certificates of competence. In some cases, the applicants were asking for a renewal of permits. The delay they complained of ranged between 22 and 25 months.

Their main complaint was that Harewood-Christopher “omitted, failed, neglected and refused to decide on their FULs despite their having satisfied all the requirements of the law and policy on the granting of firearm licences.”

One, a doubles vendor, said she enquired several times about her application, and not having been told there was an issue to hinder her from getting it, she believed there was no good reason why the commissioner had not made a decision.

“I am a doubles vendor and due to the high crime rate, I am more susceptible to being a victim of crime without a FUL and firearm. I am unable to protect myself and my family from criminal elements.

“I am also concerned for the safety and security of my family as I am unable to protect them fully due to the high crime rate in the country.”

The majority of the other FUL applicants are business owners.

In the new group, one of the litigants, a pilot, said he applied for an FUL after a home invasion in 2021. He has been waiting for 23 months for a decision.

Police constables threaten to sue over promotion

HUNDREDS of police constables have signalled their intention to approach the court for constitutional relief for what they say is the unreasonable delay by the Promotions Advisory Board to convene a meeting to conduct interviews.

Attorneys for the constables, all second-division officers, have written to the Attorney General and the Office of the Solicitor General with their complaint.

They are represented by a team of attorneys comprising of Jagdeo Singh, Leon Kalicharan, Karina Singh, Vashisht Seepersad, Keston Lewis and Savitri Samaroo.

In the pre-action letter, Samaroo said all the second division constables they represent -who joined the police service between 1995 to 2012 – have all passed their qualifying examination for the rank of corporal while several of them have passed the exam for the rank of sergeant.

Samaroo contend the Promotions Advisory Board (PAB) has failed to sit every three months to consider promotions as mandated by the Police Service Act, so their clients’ have not be assessed

“It has failed to rate the officers and to determine whether they are to be placed on an order of merit list,” the letter said.

In their letter, the attorneys asked for an undertaking that the PAB, which was allegedly supposed to sit on Monday, consider their clients in the order they would have been entitled to be assessed, three months after they passed their examinations.

“The exercise of interviewing for promotion of almost 3,000 eligible constables together will have the significant effect of depriving the intended claimants of the protection of section 19(1) of the Police Service Act,” the letter said.

The attorneys also asked that after assessing their clients, a merit list be prepared for submission to the commissioner and for the consequential number of vacancies to be reserved once they are successfully assessed.

The pre action letter named each of the constables who are seeking promotion.

The letter said the act and the regulations, together with departmental orders issued by the commissioner, provided the statutory framework by which the police service is staffed with

“ with a continuous trained complement of competent officers. It therefore serves an integral role in the maintenance of law and order in the country.”

“Police Constables form the backbone of the TTPS and they are managed by corporals who perform the main tasks of day-to-day police work.

“It is common knowledge that crime continues to be a significant challenge for the people of the country (which experienced the highest murder rate of 605 persons in 2022).

“It stands to reason that the proper administration of the force, charged with keeping law and order, is of the utmost public interest and concern,” Samaroo wrote.

She said the unreasonable delay of the PAB has denied their clients of their promotional prospects.

The PAB is comprised of a deputy commissioner, an assistant commission, the director of human resources; a senior officer who is not a police officer from the Ministry of National Security and an independent management consultant appointed by the commissioner

“Many of the intended claimants have spent significant time at the rank of constable and, therefore, will likely retire before they are given the opportunity to act as sergeants, denying them financial benefits in the form of higher salaries.”

Samaroo said their pension entitlements have also been negatively affected and they have said “

they experience feelings of job dissatisfaction and demotivation.”

She said the failure by the PAB and the commissioner to act will have a “significant knock-on effect,” in the service if not addressed.

“The failure to promote persons will lead to a void in the upper ranks, when the upper ranks have retired.”

The letter said the one of the commissioner’s explanation for the failure to convene the PAB was that there were court orders which prevented it from complying. However, the attorneys said there was no court order preventing the PAB from convening for 14 years.

Other reasons, the letter said, were that it was administratively difficult to convene the PAB because of the need to collect certain bio-data information; that promotions of high ranks needed to be done before the lower ranks to create additional space; that there was a backlog of officers to be considered and the cut-off date was in 2007;

“ The act presumes a process of continuous assessment. If the PAB has straitjacketed its function in this way, then it has rendered itself impotent,” Samaroo said in the letter.