PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, A High Court judge Wednesday threw out an injunction filed by an opposition political activist, Ravi Balgobin Maharaj, seeking to delay the effects of legislation extending the term of local government representatives by a year.
Justice Jacqueline Wilson rejected the application by Maharaj, who had been seeking an order restraining incumbent local government representatives from holding office past December 3, when their term would have ended if the one-year extension was not applied.
In an immediate response, Maharaj said that while he cannot pretend that the ruling “was not disappointing, this outcome was not unforeseeable, and as such, an appeal of this matter will be mounted to have the ruling overturned in the fastest possible time.
“For that, I continue to have full faith and confidence in my legal team,” he said, adding that “while I cannot comment any further on my ongoing matter, there are some things to be said concerning the Judiciary on a whole which might be interesting to anyone interested in these types of affairs.”
He was also seeking an interim declaration that their positions are vacant from the deadline pending the eventual outcome of his substantive case over the interpretation of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Local Government Reform) Act, which was passed by a simple majority in Parliament without Opposition support early this year.
Senior Counsel and former attorney general Anand Ramlogan representing Maharaj argued that Rural Development and Local Government Minister Faris Al-Rawi misinterpreted the effect of the legislation when he announced plans to apply it to incumbent councilors and aldermen earlier this month.
Ramlogan acknowledged that his client did not have issues with the provisions of the legislation increasing the term of representatives from three years to four but maintained that it could only apply to representatives elected in the next local government elections.
He told the court that if the legislation was intended by Parliament to have the effect claimed by Al-Rawi, the Parliament would have expressly said so.
“It is an abuse of power because it is being done by the executive and not the legislature,” Ramlogan said, adding that the decision affected citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of political expression as it delayed their ability to vote for local government representatives by a year.
“What you are doing is disenfranchising persons from casting their vote. If we allow it, where does one draw the line?” Ramlogan said.
But Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes told the High Court that the injunction was unnecessary as Justice Wilson is scheduled to hear and determine Maharaj’s substantive case in January next year.
“What is the rush? Is it that some point needs to be made? Why so adamant?” Mendes said, noting that if the injunction was granted and the substantive case was eventually dismissed, it would mean that the representatives’ extended term would be shortened by two months.
“That is not speculation. That is what would happen. It would have meant that the will of the legislature is thwarted by judicial order,” Mendes said, adding that citizens would be deprived of the services of councilors and aldermen, who he suggested were currently working on addressing issues caused by flooding across the country, last weekend.
Mendes argued that the State could not be compensated by Maharaj for the lost work of representatives.
“You cannot measure the services they would give over the next two months, and the irreparable harm would have been caused,” he said, adding that the legislation did not have a retrospective effect as claimed but rather a prospective effect on existing representatives.
“We do not say their case is frivolous and vexatious, but it is weak,” Mendes told the court.
and then 