N Touch

Tag: SC

Independent Senator: Don't assume we're PNM

INDEPENDENT Senator Michael Simon de la Bastide, SC, has urged government to use persuasive language instead of insults to rally support for the Law Reform (Zones of Special Operations-ZOSOs) (Special Security and Community Development Measures) Bill, 2026.

Debate on the bill began in the Senate on January 20 and continued on January 21. The Senate will resume the debate on January 23 at 1.30 pm. The House of Representatives passed the bill on January 16.

The bill allows Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar as chair of the National Security Council, in consultation with the Commissioner of Police (CoP) and the TT Defence Force Chief of Staff, to declare certain areas in the country as ZOSOs for a maximum of 180 days.

During debate on the bill in the Senate, De la Bastide and Anthony Vieira, SC, each expressed a willingness to support the legislation. But they also lamented criticisms levelled against independent senators with respect to whether or not they will support the bill which requires a three-fifth’s majority for passage.

In the Senate, this equates to 19 votes. Government has 15 senators while the Opposition has six and the Independents have nine.

De la Bastide said he could understand why government may not want to consult with the opposition in such matters because it believes it will not get its support.

He added, “But you do have the independent senators and I think it is definitely worth the effort and it is independent senators that you are trying to encourage to support the bill.”

De la Bastide said, “Well speak to us before the debate, using whatever parliamentary procedures that you can and let us thrash out maybe amendments…compromises.”

Independent senators, he continued, find themselves in a situation where insults are being hurled at them.

After repeating independent senators are open dialogue on legislative matters, de la Bastide said, “Don’t assume that we are PNM.”

Looking across the aisle at government senators, he added there are people in this group who know independent senators are not PNM puppets.

“They know that, and even if you think that…have a discussion with us before. Hear how we respond. See if we change our mind about that. There’s no need for these insults and denigrating people.”

De la Bastide said while he is not fazed by this, “it is a chilling effect on other people.”

He cautioned this could lead to a reluctance by people to wish to serve as independent senators, who are appointed solely by the President, in the future.

“They will look at what has happened now and and a lot of good people will say, I am not up for that kind of pressure.”

De la Bastide cautioned against certain parts of TT which are believed to be hotspots, and the people who live in them, being stigmatised, if these places are designated as ZOSOs.

“I don’t live in a hotspot.” He argued some of the people advocating for ZOSOs, do not live in such places.

“You have to look at the reality of who are the people who are on the receiving end of these powers.

De la Bastide accepted the argument that a new approach was needed to curb crime in TT. While supporting the intent of the bill, De la Bastide argued this should only be a temporary tool until such time the proper law enforcement and social initiatives are in place to address the root causes of crime.

Referring to Attorney General John Jeremie’s track record as a lawyer, de la Bastide said he did not believe Jeremie would see contributions raised by independent senators as “vapid” or “shallow” and address them in a thoughtful manner.

De la Bastide hinted at the possibility of a political party other than the UNC or PNM forming the government in the future.

He cautioned against creating a situation to give future governments a power over the population which could be authoritarian.

“Be careful what you wish for.”

In his contribution, Vieira observed previous governments have failed to curb crime through traditional measures. He told senators, the public expects Parliament to respond to these matters honestly. “It would be disingenuous to pretend that what we have been doing is sufficient. Vieira approached the bill with an open and cautious mind.

He said this did not mean an abandonment of principles as some may argue.

“It is an acknowledgement that entrenched root problems sometimes require carefully calibrated innovation.”

Vieira said this issue is not one of security versus human rights “but to ensure that any enhanced security measures, remain consistent with constitutional values and the rule of law

He added the bill “is not a state of emergency (SoE) in disguise…it is an attempt to surgically address areas of entrenched criminality while preserving as far as possible, ordinary criminal procedure and judicial supervision.”

Vieira was satisfied the legislation contained sufficient safeguards to prevent potential abuse. He said zones were geographically identified and determined with respect to information provided by law enforcement.

“There is no racial or political classification.”

But Vieira cautioned against this becoming a perception. He told senators safeguards are only effective depending on the way in which they are enforced. Vieira also cautioned against the potential blurring of institutional lines, if the military involvement in civilian law enforcement becomes normalised

Vieira said in a constitutional democracy, Parliament does not exist as a forum to applaud.

“Independent senators were not appointed to be predictable. They were not appointed to be loyal and they certainly were not appointed to be silent. Our role is to ask the uncomfortable questions.”

Vieira said this role is particular important when laws expand certain powers and raise questions over the use of such powers.

“If that makes our contributions vapid, then I plead guilty.” Vieira said vapidity in this context meant independent thought.

He assured the population, “this independent bench will continue to do the dangerous work of thinking carefully, speaking plainly and voting deliberately.”

Vieira said this will happen even when it is unfashionable and even when “it is described as shallow.”

On January 20, Persad-Bissessar said she would not be surprised if independent senators did not support the bill. She repeated previous questions she raised as opposition leader over the independence of these senators, who under the Constitution are selected by the President.

Princes Town couple get 29 yrs for ex-fireman's murder

A PRINCES TOWN couple who killed the woman’s previous abusive boyfriend have been sentenced to a total of 29 years for their roles in the businessman’s murder.

Dwayne Baldeo and Renee Mohammed were sentenced by Justice Mauricia Joseph-Patrick in the San Fernando High Court for the October 28, 2020, murder of Christopher Hosein.

Hosein, 45, a businessman, who resigned from the Fire Service about ten years ago, lived at St James Street in Princes Town. There, he ran his business, Expert Fire and Safety Ltd. A farmer found his burnt body near his burnt Kia Sorento in a gravel road off the M1 Tasker Road in the Ste Madeleine police district. A yellow rope was tied around Hosein’s neck, his hands were bound, and his eyes were covered with duct tape.

Police investigations quickly focused on Baldeo and Mohammed after CCTV footage, witness accounts, and forensic evidence linked them to Hosein’s apartment. A white Toyota Fielder wagon driven by Baldeo was intercepted later that day, and items belonging to the deceased were recovered. A post-mortem examination determined that Hosein died from a combination of asphyxia, inhalation of soot, burns, and blunt force trauma to the head.

Baldeo and Mohammed both pleaded guilty to murder on the basis of felony murder under a plea agreement with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The agreement followed their indictment on June 18, 2024, for Hosein’s murder of Hosein. In sentencing the two, Justice Joseph-Patrick adopted a starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment for both. Baldeo benefited from a downward adjustment of three years for his conduct while incarcerated. A further one-third reduction was applied for his guilty plea, amounting to ten years. After also taking into account time already spent on remand of almost five years, Joseph-Patrick imposed a final sentence of a little over 15 years’ imprisonment.

Baldeo was represented by Rajiv Persad, SC, and Ajesh Summesar.

Dwayne Baldeo. – Photo courtesy TTPS

Mohammed’s starting point was also reduced by three years for remorse and positive conduct in prison. An additional one-year reduction was granted in light of her background, personal history, and immaturity at the time of the offence. She was 23 at the time. A further one-third reduction for her guilty plea, amounting to nine years and eight months,was applied. After credit for time spent in custody, Mohammed received a final sentence of slightly over 14 years’ imprisonment.

She was represented by attorneys Michelle Ali and Kameika Peters of the Public Defenders’ Department.

In an affidavit placed before the court, Mohammed described a deeply troubled personal history, including childhood sexual abuse and a turbulent, on-and-off relationship with Hosein. She said aspects of that relationship caused past trauma to resurface and contributed to her emotional state at the time.

Mohammed admitted she and Baldeo were also in a tumultuous relationship. He helped her and her mother financially and with errands. She said it was never her intuition to lead him on, but she now realises she was wrong for entertaining his advances. She detailed incidents in which she alleged he had previously assaulted her, leading to serious injuries and extended hospitalisation.

According to Mohammed, after her release from hospital she moved in with Hosein due to her physical condition and financial dependence. She said she also suffered abuse by Hosein while recovering from her injuries.

She claimed that she later disclosed her experiences to Baldeo, who offered to “rough up” Hosein. She admitted accepting that offer and helping to plan the encounter, but maintained that she did not intend or expect Hosein to die.

“I understand that I was a party in the act that caused the deceased to die,” Mohammed stated, “but I had no intention or knowledge that he was going to die.”

She described the past five years in custody as “a nightmare” and expressed remorse for her actions.

 

Professional misconduct findings against 3 attorneys overturned

THE Court of Appeal has overturned findings of professional misconduct against three attorneys, ruling that the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association (LATT) denied them a fair hearing and acted outside proper procedure.

In a consolidated judgment delivered by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, with concurring opinions from Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and Maria Wilson, the court allowed appeals by attorneys Dinesh Rambally, Karina Singh and Desiree Sankar and set aside reprimands imposed on them in April 2024.

The appeals arose from complaints filed in December 2020 by Michael Dhanoosingh, who alleged conduct unbecoming against the attorneys in relation to their representation of him in property litigation involving the sale of family-owned land in Aranguez.

Dhanoosingh was unrepresented before the disciplinary committee and did not appear or participate in the appeal.

The committee investigating Dhanoosingh’s complaint was chaired by committee vice chairman Ian Benjamin, SC, and comprised members: Marcelle Ferdinand, Jo-Anne Julien and former independent senator Hazel Thompson-Ahye.

It had found the attorneys guilty of professional misconduct under Part B, Rule 18 of the Code of Ethics, which prohibits inexcusable or undue delay, negligence or neglect, and issued reprimands. The Court of Appeal ruled these findings could not stand.

Boodoosingh said the disciplinary process “did not, unfortunately, demonstrate” the structured approach required under the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules.

“There was an absence of the structured approach to a disciplinary hearing that both the complainant and the attorneys might have been expected to have.”

He stressed that disciplinary hearings must follow a two-stage process, beginning with a preliminary assessment of whether a prima facie case exists, followed by a properly constituted hearing if such a case is established.

“The consequence of a finding of misconduct against an attorney is a serious matter,” the chief justice wrote, noting it can leave “a stubborn stain on his or her career, difficult to wipe away.”

The court found that the committee failed to require the complainant to particularise his allegations, did not clearly identify the specific breaches alleged, and did not subject the complainant’s assertions to cross-examination.

Instead, the hearings evolved into what the court described as an unstructured discussion that culminated in findings of guilt without clear reasons.

“One understands that a complainant may not be legally represented. A complainant might have no money to pay another lawyer to bring a complaint, or may be jaded and not wish to engage another lawyer because they may, justifiably or not, have lost faith in lawyers.

“In such a case, the committee must exercise its powers as any other tribunal being faced with an unrepresented litigant, guiding them on procedural matters as needed.

“Bearing in mind, this is an aspect of a self-regulated profession where the committee is charged with the responsibility for maintaining and enforcing high standards, the process must be simple enough and afford some flexibility.

“However, this is not an excuse to short cut the usual safeguards that someone who has been accused of misconduct should also have.

“The consequence of a finding of misconduct against an attorney at law is also a serious matter for the attorney and can constitute a stubborn stain on his or her career, difficult to wipe away.”

Boodoosingh noted that the committee appeared to have engaged in trying to understand the complaint after which the hearing “then morphed into a finding of guilt, and a discussion on an appropriate penalty…

“What occurred from the printed record in these proceedings was a rolling discussion over the six-day period between the chairman of the committee, with brief interventions by two other members, which culminated in a finding of misconduct and a reprimand being imposed. The transcripts do not demonstrate any reasoning as to why the committee found the three attorneys to be guilty of professional misconduct. There was a discussion of the nature of the penalty, but no clear opportunity was given for a mitigation plea to be made.”

Bereaux, in a detailed judgment, said the committee was “plainly wrong” and committed multiple errors, including entertaining complaints that were vague and lacking in particularity, and then formulating a new complaint of its own. He criticised the committee for raising, on its own initiative, concerns about the adequacy of legal advice surrounding a consent order—an issue that was not clearly raised by Dhanoosingh in his affidavits.

“There was no evidence from Mr Dhanoosingh that that was his complaint,” Bereaux said. He noted that the attorneys were effectively confronted with a new allegation midstream.

The court noted that Dhanoosingh’s affidavits against each attorney were virtually identical and did not specify how each lawyer’s conduct amounted to misconduct. By contrast, the attorneys filed detailed affidavits outlining their actions in the matter, including correspondence, court appearances and advice given. That evidence was not challenged or contradicted.

“It misdirected itself as to the nature of the complaint and the facts to be considered in regard to the complaint.

“The approach of the committee in the determination of the case against the appellants was a masterclass in how a disciplinary tribunal should not conduct itself,” Bereaux wrote.

“There was nothing in Mr Dhanoosingh’s complaints that was demonstrative of some form of misconduct.

“The complaints ought not to have led to a ‘full-blown’ disciplinary hearing. The appellants did not know the case they had to answer. To have required them to endure the oppression of disciplinary proceedings was unfair, harsh and unreasonable.”

Wilson, in her concurring opinion, underscored that while disciplinary proceedings may allow some flexibility when a complainant is unrepresented, such flexibility cannot justify abandoning fundamental safeguards of fairness.

“This is a matter where the reputation of attorneys was at stake. The decision of the committee will either have restored it or damaged it.

“It was incumbent on the committee to ensure that complainant stated the allegations in clear terms in the complaint.

“It mattered not that the complainant was not an attorney. The committee’s responsibility was to ask questions of the complainant if the allegations were not clear, and request that the complainant further particularise the claim. This was not turning him into an attorney as alluded to by the chairman of the committee,” Wilson wrote.

“It was the committee’s responsibility to ensure that the complaint before them clearly stated the allegations brought against the appellants. If it was not clear, then they would have to ask the complainant to provide the particulars rather than for the committee themselves to attempt to clarify the complaint.”

She added, “It is clear to us that the committee did not follow the established procedure in the hearing of these complaints brought against the appellants.

“This could possibly be due to the Committee’s attempt to assist an unrepresented complainant. Despite such a noble objective, the failure to follow the established procedures resulted in its decision being unsafe and in the procedure it adopted being in breach of the rules of natural justice…

“The committee may have some latitude to consider a complaint holistically and in context. However, it ought not to search the facts to identify some wrongdoing.” Beyond allowing the appeals, the court urged consideration of systemic reforms to assist unrepresented complainants.

Boodoosingh suggested that legal aid, volunteer attorneys or clinics, such as the Hugh Wooding Law School Legal Aid Clinic, could help complainants frame their complaints and present relevant evidence without compromising the adjudicative role of the committee.

“The committee has an important role in the regulation and maintenance of high standards of conduct in the legal profession,” the chief justice said. “This does not mean that the elements of a structured disciplinary hearing should be put to the side.”

The court also advised on providing a written decision when a finding of misconduct and a sanction is imposed.

“Where the decision of the committee imposes a finding of misconduct and a sanction of a reprimand, and that decision is less than two paragraphs with very little indication of what exactly the neglect or negligence in advising their clients was, the committee must lean in favour of providing a decision.

“This court notes that the sanction of a reprimand is not an insignificant punishment. The Registrar records such punishments pursuant to section 39(4) of the Act. It becomes part of the records of the registry and can have lasting professional consequences.

“A committee that feels assured, beyond a reasonable doubt that attorneys have breached its Code of Ethics must make their reasons clear for so doing, whether orally or in writing.”

Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Kiel Taklalsingh, Stefan Ramkissoon and Nicholas Sant represented Rambally. Leon Kalicharan represented Karina Singh. Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, Shveta Parasram represented Sankar.

Commenting on the ruling, Taklalsingh said, “The decision is an important one for all professionals and in particular disciplinary bodies who may misuse their power of discipline.”

[UPDATED] Monos Island kidnap victim Tardieu freed, wife unaccounted for

MONOS ISLAND kidnap victim Derrick Tardieu has been freed. However, the whereabouts of his wife, Clarabelle, 47, remain a mystery.

Tardieu, 70, and Clarabelle were kidnapped from their home on Monos Island on December 6. A video sent by kidnappers to relatives showed the couple being held at gunpoint with a grenade to the chest of Tardieu. Tardieu is heard pleading emotionally, “Robert, please, my life…oh God, oh God.” Robert Tardieu is Derrick’s brother.

A US$2.5 million ransom demand was made for their return.

In a media release on December 17, attorney Lesley-Ann Lucky-Samaroo, SC, acting on behalf of the family, confirmed that “their loved one Derrick has been released.” The statement said Tardieu is currently “seeking medical attention and care and needs time to recover from this ordeal.”

The attorney said the Tardieu family appreciates the kind words, support and prayers during this difficult time.

No mention was made of Tardieu’s wife in the release.

The family has asked the public to request their privacy “and the privacy of their loved one as they recover.”

Police commissioner Allister Guevarro confirmed that Tardieu was released but declined to speak about Clarabelle.

“I can confirm that the information shared by the family of Mr Derrick Tardieu is accurate. However, the matter remains under active investigation,” Guevarro told Newsday in a WhatsApp message.

“At this sensitive stage, the TTPS is unable to provide any further details. We thank the public for their assistance thus far and ask for continued co-operation as the investigation progresses.”

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar was asked about the kidnapping outside Parliament on December 9.

She said, “The one on Monos Island, I don’t want to pronounce because the matter will be before the police, but it’s a bit very fishy for someone to ask for US$2.5 million.”

The PM added further investigations will lead to more answers.

“I can’t see them demanding U$S2.5 million for any one of you here. So we need to drill down more into it and police need to do more investigations.”

Tardieu, a former powerboat racer, is well known among the TT Powerboat Association (TTPBA) fraternity and since his kidnapping the community has been praying for his safe release, along with his wife.

TTPBA president Stefan Lewis on December 17 said he was relieved to hear of Tardieu’s release.

“The fraternity is extremely happy,” he said.

Long-standing powerboat photographer Ronald Daniel said he was relieved, “Free at last.”

Daniel said the situation has hit home for him as he knows Tardieu for decades. “That had our whole family upset. We stay down the islands all the time.”

Daniel said his entire family has been praying for a positive outcome.

This story was originally published with the title “Monos Island kidnap victim Tardieu freed” and has been adjusted to include additional details. See original post below.

MONOS ISLAND kidnap victim Derrick Tardieu has been freed.

Tardieu and his wife Clarabelle were kidnapped from their home on Monos Island on December 6. A US$2.5 million ranson demand was made for their safe return.

In a media release on December 17, attorney Lesley-Ann Lucky-Samaroo, SC, acting on behalf of the family, confirmed that “their loved one Derrick has been released.” The statement said Tardieu is currently “seeking medical attention and care and needs time to recover from this ordeal.”

The attorney said the Tardieu family appreciates the kind words, support and prayers during this difficult time

No mention was made of Tardieu’s wife in the release.

The family has asked the public to request their privacy “and the privacy of their loved one as they recover.”

3 freed of Temple Street pool party double murder

THREE men charged in connection with the 2023 double murder of two women at a pool party in Arima were discharged by a High Court master, who ruled there was insufficient evidence against them.

Brian St Rose, Christian Hernandez and Brian Hernandez, all of Temple Street, Arima, were charged with the murders of Candice Griffith and Alana Layne, as well as the wounding of three others on April 17, 2023.

After a sufficiency hearing, Master Margaret Sookraj-Goswami ruled there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for murder against the three men, and they were discharged of all charges.

Police said that at about 10.35 pm on April 17, 2023, officers responded to reports of loud explosions on Temple Street. On arrival, they found several people suffering from gunshot wounds. Two women – one from Nelson Street, Arima, and the other from Temple Street – were pronounced dead on arrival at the Arima Hospital.

According to police, six assailants entered the premises and opened fire on a group of people attending a birthday pool party. The men were represented by a team of attorneys that included Pamela Elder, SC, Sallian Holdip-Francis, Russell Warner and Kareem Marcelle.

Man charged in fatal crash involving Tobago couple freed

PROSECUTORS abruptly halted a judge-only trial against a Tobago man charged with two counts of causing the deaths of a fireman and his wife in 2023.

On the third day of the trial of Skeater Fredrick, who appeared before Justice Nalini Singh in the Scarborough High Court, charged with causing the deaths of Christian Adams and his wife, Teresa Alleyne-Adams, an employee with the Division of Finance, prosecutors offered no further evidence, bringing the case to an abrupt end.

Up to that point, Justice Singh had received formal admissions from eight prosecution witnesses, while three others gave evidence during the short-lived trial and were cross-examined by Fredrick’s attorney, John Heath, SC.

When the trial resumed on December 17, prosecutor Dylan Martin said, in keeping with the code for prosecutors, the evidence disclosed no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. He said the Director of Public Prosecutions had directed the State to offer no further evidence. Fredrick was subsequently discharged by Justice Singh.

Also representing Fredrick was Adanna Joseph-Wallace, while Cassie Bisram also appeared for the prosecution.

The Adams were on their way to pick up their children when they were killed in an accident on the Claude Noel Highway.

At the time, police reported that a truck travelling east to west along the highway swerved after another vehicle travelling west to east entered its path as it approached the Rockly Vale traffic lights. The driver attempted to avoid the car but still collided with it. The truck then flipped and landed on the white Suzuki driven by Adams.

Police said the husband and wife were crushed and died at the scene. Officers were told they were on their way to pick up their three children from school when the crash occurred.

Eyewitnesses said the truck collided with two vehicles and landed on one. It was loaded with rocks, which fell onto the car, causing the fatalities. The truck later rolled down a hill near the botanical gardens as efforts were made to retrieve it.

High Court shuts down concrete plant in Chase Village

A HIGH COURT JUDGE on December 15 quashed decisions by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) that allowed a concrete batching plant in Chase Village to operate without proper environmental approval, ruling the regulator acted unlawfully and ordering the plant to shut down.

Justice Nadia Kangaloo held that the EMA’s decisions permitting Central Concrete and Pumps Ltd to continue operations, including the grant of a certificate of environmental clearance, were illegal, irrational, and breached procedural fairness.

The ruling came in a judicial review claim brought by Everton Phillip, a Chase Village pensioner who lives near the Derrick Road facility and said he has been affected for years by noise and dust from the plant’s operations.

In her order, Kangaloo declared the EMA’s decisions “null and void and of no effect,” quashing those decisions while compelling the authority to cancel and expunge the CEC, which was issued on April 15, 2024, to Central Concrete and Pumps Ltd.

The court further directed the EMA to take immediate enforcement action to require the company to cease all operations at the concrete batching plant until it properly applies for and obtains a CEC in accordance with Section 35 of the Environmental Management Act.

Phillip was also awarded damages for losses caused by the impugned decisions, including aggravated or exemplary damages. The amount will be assessed by a master in chambers. The EMA was ordered to pay Phillip’s legal costs.

The court granted a stay of its orders until January 26, 2026.

Phillip first received the court’s permission to challenge the EMA’s actions in February 2024. He contested a decision conveyed by letter dated November 30, 2023, in which the EMA allowed the company to continue operating the plant before obtaining a CEC, and the authority’s failure to enforce the law by shutting down the facility.

Phillip said he lived on Derrick Road, Chase Village, close to the plant, and has been affected by its operations since 2003. He said two concrete batching plants were established on the site, one in 2003 and another in 2013, in an area zoned residential and commercial.

According to Phillip, complaints were made over the years to the Town and Country Planning Division, the Chaguanas Borough Corporation, the EMA, and the Ombudsman. An EMA investigating officer in 2014 recommended legal action and issued a notice of violation, but the authority later entered into a consent agreement with the company that did not require it to obtain a CEC or immediately cease operations.

Phillip argued that the EMA had a continuing statutory duty to enforce the law and that the ongoing operations continued to adversely affect him and other residents.

Central Concrete and Pumps Ltd was named as an interested party in the proceedings. Kingsley Walesby and Stephanie Rajkumar represented Phillip. Ian Benjamin, SC, Tekiyah Jorsling and Rachel Ramoodith represented the EMA while Shiv Sharma appeared for Central Concrete and Pumps Ltd.

Judge: Foreign Affairs Ministry, Children's Life Fund Authority acted unlawfully

A HIGH COURT JUDGE has ruled that the Ministry of Foreign and Caricom Affairs and the Children’s Life Fund Authority acted unlawfully by failing for years to meet statutory obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

In separate rulings on December 15 and 16, Justice Robin Mohammed granted activist Hershael Ramesar several declarations, ordering the publication of statements from 2016 to 2021.

In the latest ruling involving the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Mohammed found that the ministry breached mandatory publication duties under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the period 2016 through 2021 and rejected arguments that a later update cured those violations.

Ramesar had filed a judicial review claim challenging the ministry’s failure to publish annual statements detailing its functions, records, and policies as required by law. The application was filed in June 2022, after the ministry acknowledged it had not published the required statements for several years.

In a detailed judgment, Mohammed held that sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Freedom of Information Act impose “annual and continuing obligations” on public authorities. He said the ministry’s April 6, 2022, correspondence amounted to a “clear and unequivocal admission” that it failed to comply with those duties from 2016 to 2021.

“The administrative challenges and the covid19 pandemic, while explaining the failure, do not negate the existence of the statutory breach,” the judge ruled, noting that the legislation provides no general suspension of obligations because of inconvenience or external events.

“The FOIA does not provide for a general suspension of its obligations due to administrative inconvenience or external events.”

The judge also found that the minister’s later publication of reasons under section 7(4) of the Act did not cure the noncompliance. Mohammed said the reasons addressed only part of the period and applied solely to section 7, leaving breaches under sections 8 and 9 untouched. He further ruled that no reasons were ever lawfully published for the years 2016 to 2018.

Rejecting the ministry’s argument that its July 15, 2022, publication of an updated statement rendered the case academic, Mohammed said such an approach would undermine the purpose of the act. Annual publication, he said, allows the public to track changes in an authority’s structure and decision-making over time.

“To hold that the publication of a single, up-to-date statement after years of non-compliance absolves a public authority of its past and continuing breaches would be to sanction the flouting of statutory obligations,” the judge stated.

He further ruled that the ministry breached the law by failing to publish required material in both the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette and a daily newspaper, finding the two methods of publication are “complementary and not interchangeable.”

“The Gazette serves an important official function, while newspapers remain a primary and practical means by which citizens access information on a daily basis. Failure to utilise both channels frustrates the purpose of ensuring broad and effective public access to information.”

Mohammed granted multiple declarations confirming that the ministry’s failures from 2016 to 2021 were unlawful and contrary to the policy of the Freedom of Information Act. He also issued orders of mandamus compelling the ministry to publish the outstanding information in compliance with sections 7, 8, and 9 within 30 days of the order. The ministry was ordered to pay costs to Ramesar, with costs to be assessed if not agreed.

In the matter involving the Children’s Life Fund Authority, the judge rejected the authority’s arguments that ministerial approval and executive policy excused the breaches.

Mohammed declared that the authority breached its statutory duties between 2016 and 2021, ordering it to publish the outstanding information within 30 days.

Ramesar brought the judicial review claim in February 2023, arguing that the authority failed to publish annual statements required under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Freedom of Information Act, legislation designed to promote transparency and accountability among public bodies. The Children’s Life Fund Authority conceded it did not publish the statements for several years but maintained that it was unable to do so without ministerial approval.

Mohammed rejected that defence, holding that executive policy and the absence of ministerial approval cannot override a mandatory statutory obligation imposed by Parliament. “A public authority cannot avoid its statutory duties by pointing to the failure of another arm of the executive,” the judge said, adding that to accept such an argument would allow the effectiveness of the law to be defeated by inaction.

The court also dismissed the authority’s claim that publishing a single, updated statement in 2022 cured earlier noncompliance. Mohammed ruled that the Freedom of Information Act imposes annual obligations and that each year’s publication serves a distinct public purpose. Accepting the authority’s position, he said, would create a “perverse incentive” for public bodies to ignore the law for years and later claim compliance through a single disclosure.

As part of the order, the court issued multiple declarations that the authority acted unlawfully and ultra vires the Act for the period 2016 through 2021. It also granted orders of mandamus compelling the authority to publish the required statements and make documents available to the public in accordance with the law within 30 days.

The authority was further ordered to pay Ramesar’s legal costs, with costs to be assessed if not agreed by February 9, 2026.

Attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Vashisht Seepersad and Savitri Samaroo represented Ramesar. Michael Quamina, SC, and Leah Abdulah represented the authority, while Maria Belmar-Williams and Akeenie Murray represented the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Government delivers campaign promises with 2 key legislations

THE government said it has delivered on two significant commitments made during the general election campaign, with President Christine Kangaloo assenting to two significant pieces of legislation aimed at strengthening public safety and improving the quality of life.

A statement from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) said the new laws reflect the clear and decisive mandate given to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, SC.

The statement highlighted that the campaign had placed strong emphasis on protecting families, restoring public order, and responding to long-standing concerns raised by communities across the country.

One of the legislations identified is the Home Invasion (Self-Defence and Defence of Property) Act, 2025 (Act No. 11 of 2025).

“This landmark legislation establishes the offence of home invasion and affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property within their dwelling house,” the statement said.

“The act removes any duty to retreat when acting in self-defence or defence of property and provides that a person may use reasonable defensive force, including deadly force where necessary, to protect life and property.”

The statement added that Persad-Bissessar made this issue a “central pillar” of her election campaign.

It was in response to widespread public concern over violent home invasions and the vulnerability of ordinary families, and what the statement referred to as “the lack of any action by the then PNM administration.”

“The electorate responded with a strong and resounding mandate, signalling their expectation that the law would stand firmly on the side of innocent citizens and victims of crime,” the statement said.

“This act gives effect to that mandate and provides reassurance to families that their homes remain their final place of safety.”

The other legislation identified is the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act No. 13 of 2025).

This act is said to strengthen measures addressing noise pollution and the indiscriminate use of fireworks, issues that have increasingly affected public health, safety and community well-being.

The release said during the election campaign, Persad-Bissessar committed to restoring balance between celebration and responsibility.

It added that she recognised that excessive noise and unregulated fireworks cause serious distress to vulnerable members of society, including young children, the elderly, persons with medical conditions, and individuals with sensory sensitivities.

“The Prime Minister also highlighted the severe and often overlooked impact on animals, including household pets and livestock, which can suffer fear, injury, or disorientation due to loud and prolonged explosions,” the statement said.

“Citizens across the country consistently raised these concerns, calling for stronger enforcement and clearer rules to protect communities while preserving lawful and responsible celebrations.”

The passage and assent of this legislation respond directly to those concerns by providing clearer authority for enforcement, stronger deterrents against abuse, and a framework that promotes consideration, safety and compassion.

“The assent of these two acts represents the fulfilment of specific commitments made to the electorate and endorsed through the democratic process,” the statement said.

“As the government continues its national effort to address crime, public disorder, and community well-being, it remains committed to acting decisively, responsibly, and in alignment with the will of the people. Promises made. Promises kept.”

Two freed of Tobago double murder as State fails to give evidence

TWO men facing double-murder charges were discharged by the High Court after prosecutors failed to present any evidence during a scheduled sufficiency hearing, effectively leading to a collapse of the State’s case.

Nicholas Davis and Antonio McEachnie appeared before Master Magaret Sookraj-Goswami on December 8, charged with two counts of murder stemming from a 2019 incident. The men were charged with the 2019 murder of Tobago couple John Mills, 69, and Eulyn John, 61, both of Buccoo, Tobago. Their bodies were discovered at their home on May 2, 2019. The men were arrested in 2022.

The State had previously obtained multiple extensions to file its evidential material and eventually submitted more than 50 witness statements. Prosecutors also sought permission to call a witness for oral testimony after the witness refused to swear to her written statement.

At the December 8 hearing, defence attorneys objected to documents served after court-ordered deadlines, arguing that the late filing, “mere days before the sufficiency hearing”, left them without time to review the material properly. They opposed any further extensions, noting the State had already benefited from several since the matter first came before the court.

Sookraj-Goswami ruled the hearing would proceed and that all documents filed within the final deadline would be admitted, with the defence permitted time for objections or submissions. Two statements filed out of time were excluded. However, when the charges were read, and the State was invited to tender its evidence, prosecutors declined to present any of the statements submitted in the case. With no evidence before the court to support the allegations, the Master discharged both Davis and McEachnie.

McEachnie was represented by attorneys Alexia Romero and Andiesa Weste. Davis was represented by Israel Khan, SC, and Arissa Maharaj. The State was represented by Kernester Mohammed and Mark Peters.

Ex-Cepep contractor ordered to pay costs

THE Court of Appeal has ordered an ex-Cepep contractor to pay the Cepep Company’s costs.

In a written ruling, the court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant a stay of proceedings in the dispute between Eastman Enterprise Ltd and the Cepep Company Ltd, ruling unanimously that the state company remained the successful party on the substantive stay application.

Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud and Ricky Rahim found that while Eastman Enterprise succeeded in challenging the trial judge’s separate order to refer documents to the Director of Public Prosecutions, that issue was limited in scope and did not materially affect the main question of whether the stay should have been granted.

In delivering the court’s ruling on costs, Rajkumar said the established principle that “costs follow the event” applied squarely. The judges held that the stay application was the primary event, and Eastman Enterprise had been unsuccessful both before the trial judge and on appeal.

Rajkumar held that the referral issue, though a distinct event, occupied only a minor part of the proceedings and did not justify disturbing the trial judge’s original costs order. The court found that the referral, made on untested evidence and without the participation of all necessary parties, was premature and properly reversed. However, this did not alter the outcome of the stay application, which Cepep had successfully defended.

Since Eastman Enterprise prevailed on the narrower referral point, the Court of Appeal applied a “moderate discount” to the respondent’s appellate costs.

Eastman Enterprises was ordered to pay 80 per cent of two-thirds of Cepep’s costs assessed by the High Court for the appeal while the judge’s costs order was affirmed.

On November 21, the Court of Appeal upheld a stay of proceedings in the lawsuit brought by Eastman Enterprises over the post-election termination of more than 300 contracts.

The judges held that Eastman was required to follow the contract’s alternative dispute resolution process before suing. However, the judges set aside the High Court’s order sending the case file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, calling the referral “premature and plainly wrong.” The court held that the contract’s mediation and arbitration mechanisms were sufficiently clear to constitute a mandatory condition precedent to litigation and that Eastman could not bypass them by seeking urgent court relief.

Larry Lalla, SC, St Clair O’Neil and Kareem Marcelle represented Eastman. Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop, Jared Jagroo and Asha Ramlal represented Cepep, which has also initiated legal action against its former chairman and board.

In a news release on December 8, following the ruling, Cepep called on contractors to abide by the terms of their contracts adding that it is committed to upholding the rule of law in relation to its conduct of business.

Appeal Court dismisses woman’s appeal over former home

THE Court of Appeal has dismissed a woman’s appeal and upheld a High Court ruling granting possession of a Champs Fleurs property to an investment company which purchased the property after her mortgage default.

Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and Justices of Appeal James Aboud and Geoffrey Henderson dismissed Olive Reyes-Clarke’s appeal against Southview Investments Ltd on December 4.

In the ruling, delivered by Boodoosingh, the court found that Reyes-Clarke had no realistic prospect of success in challenging Southview’s title and had unlawfully re-entered the property after its sale.

The chief justice ruled that the trial judge, Justice Margaret Mohammed, correctly determined that Southview became the lawful owner upon completion of its 2016 purchase from Scotiabank, and that Reyes-Clarke provided no evidence of any order granting her permission to re-enter or occupy the home.

Southview had relied on affidavits from company director Rambarran Sant, attorney Jean Louis Kelly, and neighbour, attorney Prakash Ramadhar, who each described multiple incidents beginning in January 2018 in which Reyes-Clarke allegedly forced her way back onto the premises, damaged locks, and refused to vacate despite police intervention. Sant said Southview never consented to her presence.

Reyes-Clarke claimed the bank mismanaged her mortgage, improperly demanded early payments, and conspired with her former attorney and Southview to deprive her of the property. She also alleged bias, misconduct, and fraud across prior proceedings and stated she believed a 2017 stay order preserved her right to possession. She further argued that the sale process was irregular. Reyes-Clarke represented herself at the appeal.

The Court of Appeal rejected her arguments. Boodoosingh said the allegations of fraud, dishonesty, and conspiracy were unsupported by evidence and could not displace Southview’s deed. He noted that disputes involving the bank were not relevant to Southview’s claim and that issues relating to earlier orders made by another High Court judge could not be revisited in this appeal.

“The judge (Mohammed) produced a well-reasoned, balanced judgment,” Boodoosingh said, adding that an adverse decision does not constitute judicial bias and that there was “absolutely no basis” for such a claim.

He concluded that Reyes-Clarke failed to show superior title or any legal authorisation to re-enter the property in 2018, and that a stay of proceedings did not grant possessory rights. The appeal was dismissed, and the order granting possession to Southview remains in force.

Southview had accused Reyes-Clarke of scaling a perimeter wall, damaging a door and locking herself in a bedroom, refusing to leave the house despite requests from the police and security.

Larry Lalla, SC, and Michael Rooplal represented Southview Investments.

PNM warns Kamla to ‘cool it’ on rhetoric or face legal action

THE Opposition is warning Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to “cool it” with her rhetoric, saying the party will explore all legal options after she accused party members of being connected with paedophiles and narco-traffickers.

In a social media post on December 1, Persad-Bissessar said, “Many persons, groups, politicians, and businesses who are profiting from drug trafficking are fuelling this anti-American narrative.”

She accused the PNM of being “against the Government’s anti-drug and anti-human-trafficking efforts” and suggested it was connected to “the local drug mafia” and “numerous allegations of paedophilia.”

A press release from the Prime Minister on December 3, again referenced allegations of a PNM link to the local drug mafia and paedophilia.

Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles, on December 3, described Persad-Bissessar’s comments as a distraction and warned her against repeating them.

“This is a very serious allegation and I want to make it abundantly clear to the prime minister that statements of that nature should not be said if the evidence does not exist.

“I also want to put on record I am going to be exploring my options as (political) leader of PNM as it relates to defamation.”

Beckles rejected the PM’s allegations and noted this was not the first time Persad-Bissessar has made such comments and claims relating to the PNM.

“She has made these allegations and is trying to convince the public there is an anti-American sentiment as it relates to the PNM. When she gives the impression we are not supportive of issues, that is absolutely false.”

She noted the UNC, on multiple occasions, failed to support laws aimed at curbing crime including anti-money laundering legislation, Proceeds of Crime Act dealing with tax evasion, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, Bail Amendment Bill and the establishment of special and virtual courts.

“It is our view that putting forward this position as it related to PNM is not only reckless but calculated deliberately to cause a distraction because of where the government finds itself.”

Opposition Senator Dr Amery Browne. – Photo by Angelo Marcelle

Senator Dr Amery Browne described comments by Persad-Bissessar as “intellectual laziness.”

He recalled a recent death threat he received on social media and noted it came after the PM targeted him after he criticised her.

“Right after those unfortunate words by the prime minister, both myself and my family received direct death threats from one of the UNC’s fanatical supporters,” Browne said.

A 48-year-old Diego Martin man has since been charged with three counts of threats to kill and four counts of misuse of an electronic device in connection with the incident.

Browne said he was concerned TT was developing a politics of hate and division and emphasised that this was not how he knows TT to be.

“The prime minister seems to be going down a road of very reckless rhetoric, aggressive language, and wild accusations without substance.

“You’re dealing with a broad population and supporters, some of whom might be susceptible to making the wrong decisions and actions based on your rhetoric.” He urged Persad-Bissessar to “moderate” her language.

Diego Martin North/East MP Colm Imbert. – Photo by Faith Ayoung

Diego Martin North East MP Colm Imbert echoed similar sentiments, calling on the PM to, “cool it.”

He referenced Persad-Bissessar’s threat to “cuff him down” in Parliament, and Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath’s rebuttal that this was meant as a joke.

“Calm down. Stop this violent language! Because even though you may think it’s a joke…your supporters may not. You’re endangering the lives of people!”

Imbert also dismissed comments by Attorney General John Jeremie, SC, who said the majority of PNM MPs had multiple firearms.

“This nonsense about guns too. The vast majority of PNM MPs do not have a gun. So that is a terrible statement to be made by a UNC official,” he said.

 

Justitia Omnibus attorneys laud UTT’s honorary doctorate for Khan

BY DANIEL KHAN AND ARISSA MAHARAJ

Guest commentary on the conferment of an honorary doctorate degree to Israel Rajah-Khan by the University of TT.

We write this essay in paying homage to our head of chambers, Israel B. Rajah-Khan SC BA, LLB, LEC And now honorary LLD (Doctor of Laws) which was recently conferred upon him by the distinguished University of Trinidad and Tobago.

The entire group of criminal advocates and support staff at Justitia Omnibus Law Chambers, which Mr Khan SC heads were all elated when we learnt through the grapevine that our head of chambers will be honoured with the conferment of a honorary degree of laws by UTT. The feeling of pride and loyalty uniting the members at our law chambers ran very high. The esprit de corps will live on at our law chambers for many years.

This conferment of a honorary degree by a university solely upon a practicing advocate at the criminal bar is historic. But, then again, Khan has been a senior associate tutor at the Hugh Wooding Law School for the past 38 years to present.

About Israel B Rajah-Khan

Israel B. Rajah-Khan is a graduate of the Hugh Wooding Law School (HWLS) class of 1979 and he established the Justitia Omnibus Law Chambers that same year and has since earned recognition as one of the nation’s foremost criminal attorneys. He was awarded the prestigious title of senior counsel (silk) in 2000.

He maintains an extensive legal practice before both local and regional courts across the Caribbean. Notably, he is also listed on the International Criminal Court’s Registry of Defence Counsel at The Hague, Netherlands, to represent individuals charged with international crimes. He is the current president of the Criminal Bar Association of TT.

Khan was honoured in 2024 by HWLS with six other legal luminaries “chosen from HWLS’s pool of graduates of 50 years as its most distinguished and prestigious graduates who by their remarkable achievements and dedication to the practice of law have inspired countless attorneys in the Caribbean region”.

In March 2023 the official Opposition in the Parliament of TT nominated him for the consideration by the Electoral College of Parliament for the election of the seventh President of the Republic of TT.

Significant achievements

For over four and a half decades Israel Khan SC has been an unwavering voice in the national conversation of TT. Through incisive newspaper columns, public addresses, and frequent appearances on national television, he has consistently brought complex social, legal and political issues into the public spotlight. His distinctive style of communication, marked by clarity, fearless honestly and through-provoking soundbites, has captivated both the everyday citizen and the intellectual elite.

His public engagement has not merely been commentary, it has been advocacy. His efforts have aimed to uplift public consciousness, fostering a culture of critical thinking and civic awareness. Whenever speaking on matters of justice, he has shown unyielding commitment to the ideals of democracy, transparency, and national progress.

Providing mentorship

As a senior associate tutor at the Hugh Wooding Law School, Khan has played a foundational role in shaping generations of legal practitioners in TT and mentoring attorneys, many of whom have risen to the highest ranks of the profession, including appointments as Judges and senior counsel.

Senior Counsel Israel Khan, left, and his son, Daniel, at their Abercromby Street, Port of Spain, law chambers. –

His approach to mentorship is rooted in empowerment, encouraging students to challenge orthodoxy, question systemic injustice, and remain grounded in the principles of fairness and advocacy for the voiceless. He has particularly championed young attorneys from all backgrounds, offering them not only legal training but the confidence to believe that they could reach at the highest levels of the profession.

Courtroom advocacy

Israel Khan SC is perhaps best known for his fearless courtroom advocacy, often taking on cases and causes that marked not just by legal acumen but by a principled resistance to systemic oppression and judicial inertia.

His courtroom presence is defined by a combination of intellectual sharpness and moral courage. Throughout his career, he has been an agent of legal reform, challenging outdated norms and advocating for a justice system that is inclusive and responsive to the needs of the ordinary citizen.

Principled defiance

Indeed, while the legal profession often places a premium on conformity, Khan’s is defined by principled defiance. In a field that venerates the colonial remnants of formality and decorum, he has unapologetically insisted on a jurisprudence and style of advocacy rooted in the lived realities of the Caribbean citizen. Where others may have adopted the posture and idioms of foreign legal tradition, Khan reclaimed the voice of the “everyday man” and placed it squarely in the courtroom. His courtroom advocacy forthright, eloquent, yet accessible, has served as a reminder that justice must not only be done but must be understood and felt by those it serves.

Perhaps most significantly, he has shown that greatness in law need not come at the expense of cultural identity. He has proven that one can be a formidable legal intellect while being unmistakably West Indian in language, tone and perspective. This courageous integration of identity into the legal space is not only rare, it is transformative.

Israel Khan SC has not only simply practiced law with unorthodox advocacy; he has with his brand of advocacy deliberately influenced countless of the present generation of criminal advocates in TT to accept that they have a responsibility to the emancipated society to reflect in the practice of their profession of law a persona which is rooted in the language and logic of the “everyday man” always striving to ensure that justice is not a lofty ideal but a lived reality for all.

For these reasons Khan’s contribution stands apart. He is a jurist who has bent the arc of the legal tradition in TT towards a more inclusive, representative and culturally grounded future. Metaphorically speaking, in relation to criminal law defence advocates, he is the last of the Mohicans.

CCJ president: Court has fulfilled mandate of regional justice

PRESIDENT of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and chairman of the CCJ Academy of Law, Justice Winston Anderson, says the court has fulfilled its 20-year mandate of developing an indigenous Caribbean jurisprudence and expanding access to justice across the region.

Speaking at the Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain on November 26, at the academy’s eighth biennial conference, part of the CCJ’s 20th-anniversary celebrations, Anderson said the court’s inauguration on April 16, 2005, marked a decisive step in regional judicial independence.

He said since delivering its first judgement, the court has issued 312 decisions in its appellate jurisdiction, shaping legal principles in constitutional, criminal, civil, land, family and contract law.

Anderson said rulings have reshaped long-standing doctrines, deepened understanding of Caribbean constitutionalism and democratic norms, and created minimum regional standards in criminal justice.

He noted CCJ decisions have been cited more than 450 times by courts in almost every common-law Caribbean state, including countries that have not yet acceded to the CCJ as their final appellate court.

In its original jurisdiction, Anderson said the CCJ has proven “essential” to the functioning of the Caricom Single Market and Economy, serving as the sole arbiter of disputes under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

“The CCJ is not a court imposed on us by anyone. It is a reality of our own making, our collective imagination and resources. It is interwoven into the fabric of Caribbean life. It must be for us, the people it was created to serve.”

He said the Academy of Law remains committed to fostering regional dialogue at a time when the rule of law faces increasing threats globally.

Anderson also paid tribute to the late Justice Jacob “Bob” Wit, calling him a towering figure in regional jurisprudence whose influence will “remain locked in our collective memory.”

Wit, who served on the CCJ’s inaugural bench from 2005 until his retirement in December 2023 owing to ill health, died earlier this year. A Dutch national domiciled in Curaçao, he was the court’s only civil-law jurist.

Anderson said he used that vantage point, often with a wry sense of humour, to challenge, dissect and enrich the court’s common-law traditions. Anderson said he was also central to creating the CCJ Academy of Law, which he helped conceptualise and establish in 2010.

Anderson credited him with energising major initiatives, including the 2016 biennial conference in St Maarten, the first to unite Caribbean lawyers across jurisdictions, languages and legal traditions.

“Bob was an extraordinary friend and confidant. His legacy lives on in the clarity he brought to the law and in his devotion to improving the lives of the people of this region.”

Justice Chantal Ononaiwu, CCJ judge and deputy chair of the Academy of Law, told the approximately 400 in-person participants this year’s theme, The CCJ at 20: Reflections on Caribbean Jurisprudence, underscored the court’s mandate to shape the region’s legal development and deepen Caribbean integration.

She said the conference sought to examine the CCJ’s contributions to regional jurisprudence alongside significant decisions from courts across the Caribbean, while assessing the role legislators, practitioners, academics and civil-society groups must play in charting the court’s future.

Ononaiwu encouraged participants to engage in critical discussions across constitutional law, fundamental rights, criminal justice reform, family law, estates, commercial law and Caricom law.

She said cross-cutting issues, such as the interaction between domestic and international law, the region’s plural legal systems, and the impact of technology on jurisprudential development, were particularly relevant to the region’s evolution.

Ononaiwu expressed confidence the biennial gathering would be “an enriching and rewarding experience.”

General counsel of Caricom, Lisa Shoman, SC, hailed the anniversary as both “a milestone and a seminal achievement”, describing the institution as a living validation of a regional vision.

Delivering greetings on behalf of Caricom Secretary General Dr Carla Barnett, Shoman said the Secretariat welcomed the Academy’s new co-chair, who “will undoubtedly continue the legacy of excellence we have come to expect.”

She said the region’s history of political independence placed a responsibility on Caribbean legal practitioners to shape a jurisprudence that reflects the region’s culture and socio-economic realities.

“This is what supports our integration process as a people of the Caribbean.”

Shoman said young Caribbean lawyers now confront a far more complex legal terrain than previous generations, and the CCJ Academy for Law was created precisely to help meet that challenge.

Caribbean Court of Justice, Henry Street, Port of Spain. – File photo

Pointing to the wide-ranging topics to be addressed at the conference, she joked her favourite session title was “the magnificent modern world of estates and home-grade practice”.

She said the biennial conference has been a staple since 2010 and said its continued success demonstrates “how far we have come since independence, the creation of our Caribbean Community, the inception of the Caribbean Court of Justice and the establishment of the Caribbean Academy of Law.”

Shoman described the gathering as a collaborative regional space for strengthening justice and legal innovation. The ultimate goal, she added, is “to make the lives of Caribbean institutions, and its people, better.”

Anton Edmunds, general manager of the Caribbean Country Department at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), reaffirmed the bank’s commitment to bolstering justice systems across the region.

He said the CCJ had become a confident and credible institution that advances fairness, constitutionalism and regional integration. Its decisions, he added, have clarified citizens’ rights, strengthened democratic traditions and supported the legal foundations of the CSME.

Edmunds said the CCJ’s legacy aligns closely with the IDB’s priorities. The bank has spent nearly 25 years helping Caribbean states modernise legal frameworks, strengthen criminal justice institutions and expand equitable access to justice.

He highlighted the IDB’s 2024 launch of its One Caribbean initiative, with citizen security as a core pillar. The One Safe Caribbean programme focuses on countering organised crime, protecting vulnerable groups, and improving the quality of evidence used to guide crime-reduction policies.

Through the initiative, he said, the IDB is investing in justice-sector capacity building, public education on violence prevention and digital tools to strengthen regional cooperation.

“Our aim is simple: to ensure that every citizen can live in a Caribbean where rights are protected, laws are enforced fairly, and institutions serve the public good.”

He said the conference’s agenda was timely and essential to the region’s development.

 

AG hits Opposition hypocrisy on Stand Your Ground– Gun-toting PNM MPs

ATTORNEY General John Jeremie dropped a major bombshell claim while piloting the Home Invasion (Self Defence and Defence of Property) Bill 2025, in the House of Representatives on November 26, when he declared “practically all” of the Opposition MPs had, “not one, not two, not three but sometimes four and five firearms.”

He did so as he accused the Opposition of hypocrisy in not wanting to support the bill, which if passed, makes it easier for people who so qualify, to access legal firearms in the defence of themselves, their families and their properties from the criminal element.

Jeremie acknowledged that a multifaceted approach was required to successfully address crime, but asserted that government’s first two steps are to create a home invasion offence, and allow citizens easier access to licensed firearms.

Stand your ground laws were promised by UNC political leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar during the general election campaign. The PNM rejects the proposed legislation.

In making out his case of PNM hypocrisy, Jeremie said: “Practically all of the members on the front bench opposite have not one, not two, not three, but sometimes four and five firearms! Yet they tell ordinary citizens ‘none for you,’ and they get to the point where they have to donate to the police…weapons which are of dubious legality!”

In August 2023, then Minister of Energy Stuart Young admitted to relinquishing ownership of a licensed firearm to the TTPS, after then opposition leader Persad-Bissessar, claimed this firearm was an automatic weapon, days earlier, on a political platform.

Young firmly denied it was an automatic weapon, saying it was a legal gun and he parted with it of his own volition.

On November 26, in the House, Jeremie said the Home Invasion Bill was required to give peace of mind to citizens amidst rising home invasions and murders. He said annual homicides went from 420 in 2015 to 624 in 2024.

Citing a report comparing figures for the same period, Jeremie said serious reported crimes went from 825 per 100,000 people to “close to 1,000” per 100,000 individuals.

“The essence of the bill is to allow citizens to defend themselves and their property by using deadly force if necessary when their place of abode is invaded by criminals.”

Jeremie said the Law Reform Commission made proposals after examining existing laws, drawing from self-defence laws from the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, and public consultations.

Griffith: Hypocrisy by the Opposition

Former police commissioner (2018-2021) Gary Griffith, described the Opposition’s stance against the bill and its proposal to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get firearms as “blatant hypocrisy.”

“We had some of those on that side of the bench (PNM) harassing me to get firearms. We had a minister alone asking for about 13 firearms for persons very closely aligned to him! Another one asked for me to fast-track a firearm so he could get a special permit to get a firearm to kill pigs.

“That’s why (I call out) the hypocrisy of opposition MPs who were upset about me issuing FULs to law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their family and their assets, whereas they, on the other side, it was okay for them to be contacting me constantly to provide firearms for them and their friends in high places.”

Griffith declined to go into details on the identities of the Opposition politicians he referred to.

The previous PNM-led administration launched a probe into the granting of Firearm Users Licences during Griffith’s tenure.

Gonzales: Reckless behaviour by AG

Speaking after Jeremie, was Port of Spain South MP and former minister in the ministry of national security, Keith Scotland, SC, who did not address the AG’s claim that PNM MPs had multiple firearms.

However, Opposition chief whip Marvin Gonzales took to his Facebook page to condemn the AG’s allegations.

NOT IN SUPPORT: Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West MP Stuart Young speaks during debate on the Home Invasion (Self Defence and Defence of Property) Bill, 2025 which he criticised during sitting of the House of Representatives on November 26. – Photo by Ayanna Kinsale

“This is the most reprehensible and reckless behaviour again being displayed by the attorney general. It is not downright false and malicious, but endangers our personal and family lives. The public must now ask the attorney general to state the lawful means by which he now gets access to confidential information that should be within the sole domain of the TT Police Service.

“It is clear we are now living in dangerous times under this government and citizens should take careful note. Let’s be vigilant in protecting our cherished democracy,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

Scotland: Reject bill

Despite the AG’s fierce criticisms of PNM hypocrisy, Scotland held firm, rejecting the bill which he described as draconian, disproportionate, dangerous and socially reckless. He said the proposed legislation encourages the use of lethal force in trivial situations.

Scotland argued that the clauses of the legislation also made it dangerous to homeowners who use lethal force.

For instance, he said, while the proposed legislation removes a homeowner’s duty to retreat during a home invasion, clause six of the bill, instructs the court to take into consideration whether there was a possibility that the occupant could have safely retreated in assessing the proportionality of the force used.

Additionally, he argued that any homeowner who kills a home invader would be liable to face murder charges. This, he said, means the owner would be arrested and, with murder not being a bailable offence, except under specific circumstances, could spend up to 15 years in remand awaiting trial.

Scotland asserted there wasn’t a legislative shortage in the country but rather a lack of enforcement.

He said existing laws cover the offence and suggested government instead focus on strengthening law enforcement and policing, improving crime prevention and improving social investments.

Appeal Court overturns ruling quashing dentist’s suspension

THE Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that had quashed disciplinary findings and lifted the suspension of a dentist for allegedly breaching the Dental Council’s regulations and advisories against advertising, ordering the case back to a newly constituted appeal tribunal for a full rehearing.

Justices of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton, Mira Dean-Armorer and Carla Brown-Antoine found that Justice Carol Gobin, as the appeal tribunal, failed to conduct the matter as a true rehearing, as required under Section 37 of the Dental Profession Act and Part 60.8 of the Civil Proceedings Rules (CPR).

Pemberton, who wrote the unanimous judgment, said this failure prevented the proper testing of evidence, including through cross-examination, and rendered the earlier decision “plainly wrong.”

“The appeal judge clearly strayed from the mandate to treat with the appeal by way of a rehearing, by failing to take further evidence so as to ensure a proper carriage of justice. This, to my mind, served to taint the findings and conclusions arrived at in the appeal rehearing processes in the matter.”

Pemberton said the procedure for appeals to the High Court is set out in the CPR and requires the judge sitting as an appeal tribunal to deal with the appeal “by way of a rehearing.”

“This means that the appeal judge is mandated to actively ensure that all of the evidence required for a fair and just determination is placed before the court at the rehearing.”

The Dental Council had appealed after the High Court set aside its findings that Dr Dion Koonoolal breached multiple provisions of the Dental Profession Act, its regulations and council policy documents relating to advertising.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge did not ensure that all relevant evidence was placed before the court at the rehearing and instead relied significantly on statements from counsel and her own opinions, rather than admissible evidence.

Pemberton said this approach resulted in factual misdeterminations and an incorrect rejection of the council’s statutory role as the primary regulator of the profession.

The panel stressed that appellate courts reviewing professional disciplinary bodies must show “the appropriate level of respect” for the expertise and mandate of such tribunals, particularly in fields where judges have no specialised training. It concluded that the High Court minimised the role Parliament intended the Dental Council to play in maintaining professional standards.

Although Koonoolal had challenged the fairness of the disciplinary process, the Court of Appeal said it could not rule on those issues because they were never properly examined by the appeal judge.

The panel found no basis to conclude that Koonoolal was treated unfairly, stating that the allegations stemmed from actions he acknowledged as his own.

The court also held that the appeal judge erred in interpreting key advertising regulations, stating that when read as a whole, the regulatory framework clearly prohibits unauthorised advertising by dentists, subject to stated exceptions.

“When that is done, there is no ambiguity in the law and regulations with respect to the prohibition against advertising by dentists comprising the Board in Trinidad and Tobago, subject to the stated exceptions.

“The provisions are clear and admit of no ambiguity. Any finding to the contrary is plainly wrong. Further, there is nothing contained in the policy papers which contradicts the legislative provisions. Instead, the policy papers serve to assist in the practical implementation of the legislative provisions. The answer, therefore, to the question is yes.”

While noting that professional codes must evolve with modern technology, the Court of Appeal said that any such debates must not interfere with a judge’s obligation to decide appeals based on the evidence and legal framework.

“It will be for the differently constituted appellate tribunal, applying these principles, to determine whether the disciplinary tribunal’s findings and sanction were substantially wrong or amounted to a miscarriage. The threshold that an appellant must meet is high.

The court allowed the council’s appeal, set aside the High Court decision and ordered the matter returned for a rehearing before a different Appeal Tribunal. It also ordered Koonoolal to pay the Council’s costs before the Appeal Judge and in the Court of Appeal, with costs to be assessed.

Ian Benjamin, SC, Anil Maraj and Nicole de Verteuil-Milne represented the Dental Council. Anand Ramlogal, SC, and Jared Jagroo represented Dr Koonoolal at the appeal.

Lawyer tells DPP: Disregard Cepep lawsuit files sent by High Court

ATTORNEYS for ex-Cepep contractor Eastman Enterprises Ltd, which is challenging the termination of over 300 contracts by the Cepep Company soon after the April 28 general election, have written to Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, urging him to discontinue any consideration of the material referred to him by the High Court.

In a letter on November 21, attorney Kareem Marcelle informed the DPP of the Appeal Court’s reversal of the High Court’s referral.

He said the documents previously forwarded to the DPP pursuant to the High Court’s now-overturned order were “null, void, unlawful and of no effect.”

“We maintain that the said certified copy of all documents filed in the proceedings below, which was forwarded by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to your good office for consideration, is null, void, unlawful and of no effect.

“Further, any ongoing decision by your good office to ‘consider’ the said matter and/or documents which flowed from the plainly wrong and premature decision by the learned trial judge ought to be rescinded forthwith.

“We look forward to your assistance and lawful consideration in this matter.”

The Court of Appeal, on November 21, set aside a trial judge’s order that directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to send all filings from Eastman‘s lawsuit. to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), ruling that the referral was premature and “plainly wrong.”

In overturning the directive, the panel held that the trial judge failed to consider key factors, including the absence of fact-finding, untested allegations, and the involvement of individuals who were not parties to the case. The Appeal Court said the allegations had “not been tested” and could not properly ground a referral.

Although the Appeal Court reversed the referral order, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud, and Ricky Rahim found that Eastman was required to comply with the contract’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure before filing its lawsuit, affirming the trial judge’s decision to stay the claim. Rajkumar, who wrote the decision, said the dispute resolution procedures under the contract’s ADR clause were “sufficiently certain to require compliance therewith as a condition precedent to litigation.”

In August, DPP Gaspard told Newsday he would review the court documents sent to him by the court. At the time, he said he would inform the public of any major developments.

“I will peruse the subject documents. If there is a need for an investigation, that would have to be done by the police.

“I cannot impose any time frame on the police,” he said, adding, “I do consider it my duty to apprise the people of TT of any significant developments, especially since my office is a public one.”

Cepep has since said it intended to pursue all legitimate avenues open to it in the interest of justice and public administration.

“Cepep, however, remains permitted to the pursuit of justice in this matter and has sought legal advice on the fraudulent misrepresentation perpetuated on the company.”

Cepep contractor suffers defeat as court upholds stay of ‘termination’ lawsuit

THE Court of Appeal has upheld a stay of proceedings in a legal challenge brought by former Cepep contractor, Eastman Enterprises Ltd, over the termination of over 300 contracts by Cepep Company Ltd soon after the April 28 general election.

However, the appellate court overturned the High Court’s order referring the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

In a written ruling on Eastman’s appeal, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud, and Ricky Rahim found that Eastman was required to comply with the contract’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure before filing its lawsuit, affirming the trial judge’s decision to stay the claim. The Appeal Court’s decision was delivered on November 21.

However, the panel ruled that forwarding the case documents to the DPP was “premature and plainly wrong,” setting aside that portion of the order.

Rajkumar, who wrote the decision, said the dispute resolution procedures under the contract’s ADR clause were “sufficiently certain to require compliance therewith as a condition precedent to litigation.”

“In particular, the mechanisms for initiating mediation and arbitration and appointing a mediator and arbitrator were clear and sufficiently detailed to require compliance.”

He said that while the Arbitration Act permitted approaching the court for injunctive relief, it did so as an adjunct to arbitration, where contemplated.

“In this case, it is clear that arbitration could not have been contemplated because the appellant disputed the applicability of arbitration and mediation in the first place. To date, there is no evidence that any ADR procedures have been initiated.” He also said amendments to the act in 2023 could not alter the enforceability of the arbitration clause in the 2022 contract.

“Approaching the court, therefore, on the basis of seeking urgent interim relief ignores the fact that such relief was available within the arbitration process to which the parties had agreed, apart from the fact that the appellant had evinced the intention to ignore and bypass that process completely.

“It could not, therefore, justify ignoring that process based upon any alleged inability to obtain such relief except through the court.”

Rajkumar said held there was no basis for concluding that the trial judge’s exercise of her discretion was plainly wrong. According to the judgment, Eastman supplied about 29 labourers to Cepep, each earning between $1,350 and $1,653.12 per fortnight, while the company received a management fee of $23,947.90 monthly. Cepep terminated the contract under a clause permitting termination without cause by 30 days’ payment instead of notice.

Eastman filed for an injunction on July 9, arguing that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether a 2025 addendum, which it claimed superseded the 2022 termination clause. It said the termination had caused significant hardship to the company and its workers.

On August 7, Justice Margaret Mohammed stayed the proceedings after Cepep argued that Eastman had failed to follow the ADR process in clause 17 of the contract. She also directed the Registrar to send all court documents to the DPP and ordered Eastman to pay Cepep’s costs. In the ruling, Rajkumar held that even if urgency was demonstrated, Eastman could have sought interim measures from an arbitral tribunal under section 20 of the 2023 Act. On the DPP referral, however, he said the trial judge’s order could not stand. Rajkumar noted the referral was made on “incomplete and untested material” before parties had been allowed to respond.

“That referral… was premature and plainly wrong,” he said.

The contractor’s lawsuit, which alleges wrongful termination and unpaid wages for thousands of workers, is one of two filed by Laventille-based contractors over Cepep’s decision to cancel 336 extended contracts.

The other, filed by PNM MP Stuart Young, SC, in October, seeks judicial review against the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Public Utilities, the Cepep Company Ltd, and its CEO Keith Eddy, over the decision to terminate the hundreds of contracts.

Larry Lalla, SC, St Clair O’Neil and Kareem Marcelle represented Eastman. Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop, Jared Jagroo and Asha Ramlal represent Cepep, which has also initiated legal action against its former chairman and board.

Khan urges UTT graduates to help improve society

ATTORNEY Israel Khan SC is urging graduates of the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) to use their newly acquired knowledge to help improve society.

Khan made the appeal as he addressed graduates after receiving his honorary Doctor of Laws degree during UTT’s 2025 graduation ceremony at the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA) in Port of Spain on November 18.

Khan, who currently serves as president of the Criminal Bar Association of TT, was recognised for his contributions to the local and international legal landscape.

Also receiving honorary degrees were businessman and fashion designer Peter Elias, who was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Fine Arts; educator Jamwant Maharaj, who received an Honorary Doctor of Science; and songwriter, scriptwriter, and producer Gilman Figaro, who was awarded an Honorary Distinguished Fellow.

Fashion designer Peter Elias receives his honorary doctorate from President Christine Kangaloo during the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) graduation ceremony at the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA) in Port of Spain on November 18. – Photo by Ayanna Kinsale

During his address, Khan asked the graduates whether they believed the country’s resources were being distributed equally throughout society.

For those who felt they were not, he said it was their duty to help change that.

To illustrate his point, he pointed to the justice system as one area where graduates could make a meaningful impact.

Khan said it was “morally wrong” that more than 300 people remain in legal limbo for over a decade while awaiting trial dates for matters including murder.

“This is unfair both to the accused and the victim’s relatives,” he said.

He also described it as a miscarriage of justice that inquests have not been completed for many of the more than 1,000 police-involved shootings over the past 30 years, leaving numerous questions unanswered.

“This is unfair both to the police and the relatives of the persons killed by the police,” he said.

Educator Jamwant Maharaj receives his scroll from President Christine Kangaloo during the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) graduation ceremony at the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA) in Port of Spain on November 18. – Photo by Ayanna Kinsale

At the same time, he said the criminal justice system is being brought into disrepute “when bold-faced criminals” commit crimes without being held to account.

Khan, who has over 50 years of practice, said his quest throughout his career has been to improve the criminal justice system “in order to render justice for all.”

He reminded graduates never to forget where they came from, noting that many of them may be the first in their families or communities to earn a university degree.

He said it took a village to support them on their journey.

He added that they now have a responsibility to pay that goodwill forward to the next generation so the cycle of upliftment can continue.