Charles to Faris: Pay more attention in 2020 to substance

When first year law students have to correct the AG about his explanation of a basic law term (like prima facie), our Nation should be petrified.

We are in trouble when this AG last year alone and at considerable cost to the taxpayer lost at least 7 cases (two in one day) at the Privy Council many of which started during his tenure. If PC reports are correct, they include:

1. Maharaj v National Energy Corporation (judgment date 30th January 2019)
2. AG v Maharaj (February 11, 2019)
3. Singh v Public Service Commission (May 13, 2019)
4. Maharaj v Petroleum Company of TT (May 13 2019)
5. PATT v Daban (May 20, 2019)
6. Seukeran Singh v the COP (June 10, 2019)
7. AG of TT v Ayers-Caesar (December 9, 2019) 

As the chief legal adviser to the Government and all state agencies, a prudent AG might have advised a less costly course of action in these cases.

Rulings at the High Court in the last month of 2019, based on newspaper reports if correct, show a worrying picture of losses by the State.

1. TTUTA (first claimant) and Claimant Hassanaly (second claimant) v the AG (November 5, 2019)
2. Terry Andrews v the AG (November 6, 2019)
3. Bisnath Maharaj V the AG (TT Guardian December 2, 2019)
4. Markus and Simeon Jackson v the State (TT Guardian December 3, 2019)

This AG, unmindful of advice from the Opposition and others, seems hell bent on passing a suite of bad law in a failed bid to reduce skyrocketing murder rates under this administration.  Bad laws will invariably lead to more losses in our courts.

It started with his failed attempt to insert the minister of national security in the recruitment process for a Commissioner of Police.  Kamla Persad Bissessar S.C. and others successfully argued against that bad law which the court eventually ruled as ultra vires our constitution in the context of the entrenched independence of the Police Service Commission from the Executive.

Many, including the Law Association  (and the Opposition during recent debates where we proposed eight amendments none of which were accepted) have warned that recent amendments to the Bail Act will fail before the Privy Council because they violate the separation of powers concept. We quoted from the PC judgment in Mauritius v Koratty in an effort to improve the legislation, but the AG would not listen.  The legislation which we supported would have been much better had our amendments been adopted.

It appears that a “harden” AG is setting us up for yet another suite of costly losses at the PC.

As 2020 unfolds the UNC will be looking very, very closely at the “suite of legislation” which this AG intends to rush through parliament. We would advise him to pay considerably more attention to substance and details backed up by comprehensive research and widespread consultations; and much less to gallerying.

WE deserve better!