Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A social activist has won his lawsuits against the Ministry of Foreign and Caricom Affairs and the Children's Life Fund Authority over their failure to publish annual reports between 2016 and 2021 as required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Delivering two judgments on Monday and Tuesday, High Court Judge Robin Mohammed upheld Hershael Ramesar's judicial review lawsuits against the ministry and the authority.
In 2022, Ramesar filed the lawsuits claiming that the ministry and the authority breached their duties under Section 7 of the FOIA.
The legislation requires public authorities and bodies, with the approval of the responsible government minister, to publish annual statements in the Gazette and a daily newspaper.
In the statements, the authorities are required to explain their functions, the categories of documents kept by them, identify the officer responsible for handling disclosure requests under the FOIA, and the procedure to be followed when such requests are made.
In responding to the litigation, the Ministry of Foreign and Caricom Affairs sought to explain the reasons for its non-compliance.
It claimed that it faced administrative challenges when its headquarters were relocated in 2019.
It also claimed that it was preoccupied with coordinating the government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Children's Life Fund Authority claimed that it was unable to comply because the government minister at the time had refused to grant approval on the basis of governmental policy.
Both the authority and the ministry eventually published their statements for 2022 and claimed the lawsuit was academic, as their recent publications would have superseded the statements they missed.
In determining the case against the ministry, Justice Mohammed rejected its explanations for non-compliance.
"The FOIA does not provide for a general suspension of its obligations due to administrative inconvenience or external events," he said.
Justice Mohammed also rejected the authority's claims over a lack of support from its line minister.
"It is a well-established principle of public law that a statutory duty imposed by Parliament cannot be lawfully displaced, suspended or neutralised by executive policy," he said.
"Policy may guide the exercise of a discretion, but it cannot override or contradict a mandatory statutory obligation," he added.
Justice Mohammed also rejected similar claims from the ministry and the authority over the 2022 publication, absolving them of past non-compliance.
"Accepting the defendant's position would create a perverse incentive whereby public authorities could ignore their statutory obligations for years, only to publish a single statement at a later date and claim full compliance," he said.
"That approach would undermine accountability, diminish transparency, and erode public confidence in the statutory regime," he added.
In upholding both cases, Justice Mohammed issued a series of declarations against the ministry and authorities and orders compelling them to make the publications for the years they missed.
Despite his legal victory, Justice Mohammed did not order the State to cover the full legal costs incurred by Ramesar for the litigation, as he noted that he (Ramesar) filed similar cases against other authorities and ministries that were previously settled.
"It would therefore be unreasonable to award substantial costs against the State where there has been tremendous duplication of law and arguments across different matters," he said.
Ramesar was represented by Jagdeo Singh, Vashisht Seepersad and Savitri Samaroo.
The authority was represented by Michael Quamina and Leah Abdulah, while Maria Belmar-Williams and Akeenie Murray represented the ministry.
