Stories by
Opposition member and social activist Devant Maharaj is challenging Cabinet’s decision to allocate a Housing Development Unit at Victoria Keyes to Senate Vice President Nigel De Freitas in 2017. In the matter being heard before Justice Mira Dean-Amorer, Maharaj is contending that Cabinet does not have the authority to give housing accommodation to De Freitas and therefore the decision was unconstitutional.
In his affidavit, Maharaj is claiming the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) is vested with that authority and the commission made no recommendation for De Freitas to receive a housing accommodation.
In his affidavit, Maharaj said the contents of the 98th Report of the SRC was approved and adopted by the House of Representatives in March 2014.
Maharaj said he was concerned after reading in a newspaper report that De Frietas was allocated a unit in the prestigious housing development.
“My concern was not personal. Rather, I was and am concerned as a citizen who has advocated for publicity for good governance in this society, particularly including respect for our institutions such as our Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.”
Maharaj had filed for judicial review but then withdrew the claim after the State provided edited copies of Cabinet documents relating to De Freitas’ housing allowance which he requested under the Freedom of Information Act. He has since requested copies of the unedited documents.
Maharaj stated: “I believe that the Cabinet has no power to grant benefits to office holders, including to allocate accommodation, beyond those terms and conditions fixed by Parliament under the Constitutionally-protected mechanism.
“This allocation to the vice president of the Senate is unlawful and unconstitutional in that it trespasses upon the constitutional enshrined jurisdiction and independence of the SRC mechanism.”
Saying that the issue is of significant public importance, Maharaj said it raises important concerns about the rule of law.
“All notions of secretly benefitting as a result of holding high office must be dispelled with.”
He argued that Sections 140 and 141 of the Constitution requires that the SRC solely make recommendations concerning the terms and conditions of service for office holders within its purview.
He said such recommendations are ultimately accepted or rejected by Parliament.
However, he said no authority is vested within the Cabinet to unilaterally confer benefits upon any office holder within the oversight of the Commission.
He said this issue will impact on the public purse and further public confidence in elected and non-elected public officers.
He said there is also a need for the acute resolution of this issue since it is not in the public interest for uncertainty and doubt to prevail on whether the state is attempting to arrogate unto itself, power and or benefits to which it may not be legally due.
Maharaj is being represented by attorneys Anand Ramlogan SC, Alvin Pariagsingh and Chelsea Stewart while attorney Josefina Baptiste-Mohammed is representing the State’s interest.
The first hearing was held yesterday in the San Fernando Civil Court in which the judge gave certain instructions and set the matter for trial on July 10.