Derek Achong
Political activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has applied for an injunction as part of his pending lawsuit over the Government’s move to extend the term of local government representatives and effectively defer the upcoming Local Government elections by a year.
According to his most recent application, filed on Monday afternoon and obtained by Guardian Media, Maharaj is seeking an injunction 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 the alternative, he is seeking an interim declaration that their positions are vacant from the deadline pending the eventual outcome of his substantive case.
Attached to the application was an affidavit in which Maharaj sought to justify the move.
Stating that the extension is illegal and unconstitutional, Maharaj claimed that councillors and aldermen would be unlawfully occupying their offices.
“They will receive their salaries unlawfully, which are paid by the taxpayers out of public funds,” Maharaj said.
“Councillors and Aldermen, who are responsible for the allocation, disbursement and spending of public funds, will continue to do so without legal authority or legitimacy,” he added.
A date for the hearing of the application was not set up to late yesterday.
Last Friday, High Court Judge Jacqueline Wilson held a case management conference in Maharaj’s substantive case, in which she set deadlines for the filing of evidence and written submissions and reserved January 9 and 10, next year, to hear oral submissions.
While members of the media were not granted access to the hearing, which was held in chamber, Guardian Media understands that political activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj’s lawyer Jayanti Lutchmedial initially requested that the case be heard and determined before the non-extended term of local government representatives come to an end on December 3.
Sources said Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who led the legal team for the Cabinet and Rural Development and Local Government Minister Faris Al-Rawi, stated that the case should be hastily decided as there would be no “catastrophe” if the elected representatives stayed in office until the original deadline for the election in March, next year.
In his lawsuit, Maharaj claimed that he became concerned after Al-Rawi hosted a press conference and announced the Government’s intention to proclaim certain sections of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Local Government Reform) Act, which was passed by a simple majority in Parliament without Opposition support, early this year.
The sections of the legislation identified by Al-Rawi seek to increase the terms of councillors from three years to four years. It would effectively cause the deferral of the election, which was due between December, this year, and March, next year.
In the lawsuit, Maharaj’s lawyers are claiming that the legislation should not have a retrospective effect on councillors that were elected in late 2019.
Maharaj’s attorneys admitted that local government elections were deferred under the tenure of former prime minister Patrick Manning but claimed that such action was not challenged as amendments to the legislation indicating the clear intention to do so were passed by Parliament.
They claimed that the move to proclaim the legislation was unlawful and unconstitutional as it allegedly infringed the rule of law and the voting rights of citizens.
In his judicial review application, Maharaj’s lawyers claimed that the case had to be expedited to ensure that if successful the election is held before the end of March and incumbent local government representatives do not go past their originally elected terms.
They also sought to summarise the Government’s response to their legal threat, which led to the filing of the case.
In the response, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor denied that the legislation had a retrospective effect as it claimed that it operated prospectively by extending existing terms of office.
It also claimed that the Government never sought to limit its discretion on proclamation in the legislation and that Maharaj did not have a legitimate expectation that the proclamation would be delayed.
“We reject the assertion, advanced without authority, that a 4-year term of office is somehow undemocratic,” the response stated.
Through the lawsuit, Maharaj is seeking a series of declarations against the move and an order quashing it.
Maharaj is also being represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Renuka Rambhajan, Robert Abdool-Mitchell, Natasha Bisram, and Vishaal Siewsaran. Rishi Dass is appearing with Mendes for the State.