Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A for­mer mem­ber of the T&T Reg­i­ment is to be com­pen­sat­ed by the State for de­lays in de­ter­min­ing a se­ries of dis­ci­pli­nary charges against her. 

High Court Judge Jacque­line Wil­son has up­held for­mer staff sergeant Ayi­o­la Rud­der-Warn­er’s law­suit against the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, the T&T Reg­i­ment’s Com­mand­ing Of­fi­cer, and the De­fence Coun­cil. 

Al­though Jus­tice Wil­son ruled that Rud­der-Warn­er was en­ti­tled to dam­ages as her con­sti­tu­tion­al right to pro­tec­tion of the law was breached by the de­lay, she did not quan­ti­fy the com­pen­sa­tion. She is sched­uled to as­sess the com­pen­sa­tion owed to Rud­der-Warn­er on Jan­u­ary 30. 

In 2019, Rud­der-Warn­er, who en­list­ed in 1996, pro­ceed­ed on “priv­i­lege leave” in­to re­set­tle­ment train­ing in prepa­ra­tion for her manda­to­ry dis­charge, last year. 

Rud­der-Warn­er, who spent a sub­stan­tial part of her mil­i­tary ca­reer in the Pay­mas­ter’s Di­vi­sion of the T&T De­fence Force, claimed that in April 2021 and March last year, an as­sis­tant chief staff of­fi­cer rec­om­mend­ed that she not be pro­mot­ed. She claimed he was not per­mit­ted to make the “non-rec­om­men­da­tions” as she nev­er re­port­ed to him. 

A pro­mo­tion to the rank of war­rant of­fi­cer would have meant that she would be able to con­tin­ue work­ing past the age of 50. 

Rud­der-Warn­er al­so faced five mi­nor dis­ci­pli­nary charges, three of which were re­lat­ed to al­leged tar­di­ness in rec­ti­fy­ing salary de­duc­tions er­ro­neous­ly sent and ab­sen­teeism which were dis­missed af­ter fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­tions. 

Last Sep­tem­ber, four days be­fore her com­pul­so­ry re­tire­ment, she was found guilty of the two re­main­ing charges for al­leged­ly breach­ing the chain of com­mand and for fail­ing to pay com­pli­ments to the of­fi­cer who pre­vi­ous­ly blocked her pro­mo­tion. 

Rud­der-Warn­er was ad­mon­ished for the first charge and fined four days’ pay for the oth­er. 

She claimed that de­spite the out­come, her com­mand­ing of­fi­cer rec­om­mend­ed her for the pro­mo­tion. How­ev­er, the pro­mo­tion did not take ef­fect with­in that short pe­ri­od and she was dis­charged. 

In her law­suit, Rud­der-Warn­er claimed she had a le­git­i­mate ex­pec­ta­tion that she would have been pro­mot­ed. She said her pro­mo­tion could have been rat­i­fied had the charges been de­ter­mined soon­er. 

“The ap­pli­cant has al­so been forced to suf­fer the ig­nominy of hav­ing those ju­niors in rank to her be­ing pro­mot­ed and con­tin­u­ing in ser­vice whilst she had to un­cer­e­mo­ni­ous­ly de­part from the ca­reer that she has ded­i­cat­ed her qual­i­ty years of life to,” her at­tor­neys claimed. 

In de­fence of the law­suit, the State de­nied that the de­lay in the court-mar­tial process was in­or­di­nate as it point­ed out the De­fence Force Act states that such charges should be de­ter­mined with­in three years. 

Rud­der-Warn­er was rep­re­sent­ed by Ar­den Williams, Mari­ah Ram­rat­tan and Shelly-Ann Daniel. 

The State was rep­re­sent­ed by Avaria Niles and Maria Bel­mar.