JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Monday, June 9, 2025

Cabinet to decide on lawsuit by former Central Bank governor

by

30 days ago
20250510

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

The new Cab­i­net has been giv­en time to de­cide its po­si­tion on a law­suit brought by for­mer Cen­tral Bank gov­er­nor Jwala Ram­bar­ran seek­ing in­for­ma­tion rel­a­tive to his ter­mi­na­tion by the for­mer gov­ern­ment in 2015.

Af­ter he was fired by the then-Cab­i­net based on the ad­vice of for­mer fi­nance min­is­ter Colm Im­bert, Ram­bar­ran sought the in­for­ma­tion un­der the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act (FOIA), which he claimed he need­ed to pur­sue a wrong­ful dis­missal case.

Al­though the dis­clo­sure re­quest was de­nied and a law­suit over the dis­clo­sure de­ci­sion was dis­missed, Ram­bar­ran still suc­ceed­ed in his wrong­ful dis­missal case in the High Court and the Court of Ap­peal.

De­spite his suc­cess in his sub­stan­tive case, Ram­bar­ran still ap­pealed the dis­missal of his FOIA case.

When the ap­peal came up for hear­ing be­fore Ap­pel­late Judges Prakash Moo­sai, Mi­ra Dean-Ar­mor­er, and Vasheist Kokaram, Se­nior Coun­sel Dou­glas Mendes, who led the le­gal team for the Cab­i­net, re­quest­ed an ad­journ­ment to con­sult with the new Cab­i­net led by Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar on whether the ap­peal should be pur­sued or con­ced­ed.

Ram­bar­ran’s lawyer, Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, chal­lenged the po­si­tion as he de­scribed the pro­tract­ed case as an “abom­i­na­tion”.

“Just imag­ine the for­mer Cen­tral Bank gov­er­nor, who is a world-class econ­o­mist, now has to be plant­i­ng bo­di and toma­toes. That is what he is do­ing now,” Ram­lo­gan said.

Jus­tice Dean-Ar­mor­er ques­tioned how the in­for­ma­tion would ben­e­fit Ram­bar­ran af­ter his suc­cess in his sub­stan­tive case.

Ram­lo­gan ex­plained that the out­come of his sub­stan­tive case is ir­rel­e­vant, as his client main­tains that he is en­ti­tled to ac­cess the in­for­ma­tion un­der the FOIA.

He said that if the court were to rule that Ram­bar­ran was not en­ti­tled based on his sep­a­rate case, it would set a dan­ger­ous prece­dent in terms of FOIA cas­es.

“It de­feats the pur­pose of what should be the ef­fi­ca­cy of the FOIA,” Ram­lo­gan said.

The ap­peal pan­el even­tu­al­ly ad­journed the case to June 23 for Mendes to pro­vide feed­back on the case.

If a de­ci­sion is not tak­en to con­cede the ap­peal, it will be heard by the pan­el on Oc­to­ber 28.

Ram­bar­ran was ap­point­ed Cen­tral Bank Gov­er­nor in Ju­ly 2012.

The de­ci­sion to ter­mi­nate him came short­ly af­ter he an­nounced that T&T was in a re­ces­sion and af­ter he re­vealed the biggest for­eign ex­change users in the coun­try.

In his con­sti­tu­tion­al claim, he con­tend­ed that the gov­ern­ment un­law­ful­ly re­voked his ap­point­ment in breach of his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights.

In 2022, Jus­tice Devin­dra Ram­per­sad ruled that his ter­mi­na­tion was “se­ri­ous­ly flawed” and his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to pro­tec­tion of the law and to a fair hear­ing in ac­cor­dance with the prin­ci­ples of fun­da­men­tal jus­tice were breached.

Jus­tice Ram­per­sad ruled that if there were con­cerns that Ram­bar­ran’s al­leged con­duct was in breach of as­pects of the Cen­tral Bank Act and Fi­nan­cial In­sti­tu­tions Act, both had pro­vi­sions for crim­i­nal charges to be laid, which Ram­bar­ran would have had to de­fend be­fore a mag­is­trate.

“Par­lia­ment in­tend­ed that if there was a breach of ei­ther of the acts, there was a rem­e­dy to deal with that breach,” he said, as he not­ed that Im­bert did not re­veal the full rea­sons for his rec­om­men­da­tion.

Ram­bar­ran was award­ed over $5.47 mil­lion in com­pen­sa­tion, which was most­ly based on the salary he would have re­ceived un­der his con­tract had it not been ter­mi­nat­ed.

Al­though Ram­bar­ran was seek­ing sig­nif­i­cant vin­di­ca­to­ry dam­ages, as he claimed that he suf­fered psy­cho­log­i­cal ef­fects over what tran­spired, Jus­tice Ram­per­sad on­ly or­dered $175,000, as he not­ed that his (Ram­bar­ran’s) med­ical ex­pert could not prove that the con­di­tion she treat­ed in 2016 was di­rect­ly caused by such.

In Feb­ru­ary, Ap­pel­late Judges Nolan Bereaux and Mark Mo­hammed de­liv­ered a ma­jor­i­ty de­ci­sion in which they dis­missed an ap­peal from the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al chal­leng­ing Jus­tice Ram­per­sad’s de­ci­sion. Jus­tice Pe­ter Ra­jku­mar dis­sent­ed.

The out­come was not a to­tal suc­cess for Ram­bar­ran as the ma­jor­i­ty re­ject­ed his counter ap­peal, sug­gest­ing that he should have re­ceived more com­pen­sa­tion.

In­stead, Jus­tice Bereaux and Mo­hammed ruled that he should have re­ceived less. They said Jus­tice Ram­per­sad was wrong to or­der $175,000 in vin­di­ca­to­ry dam­ages and that Ram­bar­ran be paid his per­for­mance bonus­es for the two re­main­ing years of his con­tract.

Ram­bar­ran was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Jayan­ti Lutch­me­di­al, Mau­reen Rad­hay, and Sharon Be­doe. Clay Hack­ett and Brent James ap­peared along­side Mendes for the State.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored