Senior Reporter
jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad has admonished public authorities to embrace transparency after ordering the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) to release documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In a 25-page judgment delivered yesterday, Seepersad said public institutions cannot rely on administrative convenience or unsupported claims of confidentiality to deny citizens access to information to which they are legally entitled.
“Public power is accompanied by public responsibility,” Seepersad stated.
“Where Parliament has conferred a right of access to information held by a public authority, that right cannot be displaced by administrative preference, institutional convenience or an assertion of confidentiality which does not satisfy the statutory test.”
He stressed that transparency and accountability are not obstacles to good governance but are instead “among its essential safeguards.”
The judge made the comments while ruling in favour of Technical Vocational Teacher I Adriel Cruickshank, who challenged the TSC’s refusal to provide records related to disciplinary proceedings against him.
Following allegations of misconduct, a three-member disciplinary tribunal was appointed, and School Supervisor III Soren Bijaram was tasked with investigating the matter.
As part of his preparation for the disciplinary proceedings, Cruickshank submitted a FOIA request on March 19, 2025, seeking access to the investigating officer’s report, findings and recommendations, witness statements, exhibits and other adverse material held by the commission.
However, in a letter dated July 28, 2025, the TSC denied access to the documents, relying on Section 32(1)(b) of the FOIA.
The commission argued that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest because it could impair its ability to obtain similar information in future investigations. It also maintained that documents intended to be used during the disciplinary process would be disclosed at the appropriate stage of those proceedings.
Additionally, the TSC claimed the requested records contained information obtained in confidence and that disclosure could discourage individuals from cooperating with future investigations.
Seepersad rejected those arguments, finding that public authorities cannot rely on broad assertions of confidentiality without supporting evidence.
The court noted that the TSC had previously disclosed unredacted investigating officers’ reports in four other disciplinary matters. Seepersad said the commission failed to produce any evidence that those disclosures had caused witnesses to become reluctant to cooperate or had otherwise undermined future investigations.
In reaching his decision, the judge also relied on the Privy Council’s recent ruling in Devant Maharaj v National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd, observing that transparency, accountability and adherence to the rule of law generally favour disclosure by State agencies.
While acknowledging that Parliament had created legitimate exemptions under the FOIA, Seepersad found that the TSC failed to establish that the exemption it relied upon applied in this case.
He also criticised the commission for failing to properly undertake the public-interest balancing exercise required under Section 35 of the Act.
The judgment noted that simply stating that a public-interest assessment had been conducted was insufficient. Public authorities, Seepersad said, must demonstrate that they have genuinely weighed competing considerations before denying access to information.
Underscoring the importance of the FOIA, Seepersad described the right of access to information as paramount unless a valid statutory exemption can be established.
The judge also rejected the TSC’s contention that Cruickshank should wait until the disciplinary proceedings to obtain the material.
He ruled that exercising a right under the FOIA does not amount to circumventing disciplinary procedures and that the statutory right of access exists independently of those proceedings.
As a result, Seepersad quashed the commission’s decision to withhold the documents, declared that Cruickshank was entitled to the requested information and ordered the TSC to disclose the records within seven days.
The judge also stayed the disciplinary proceedings against Cruickshank until the information is provided and for a further 14 days thereafter to allow him sufficient time to review the material and prepare his response.
While declining to grant constitutional declarations or constitutional damages, Seepersad found that the commission had failed to lawfully discharge its obligations under the FOIA.
He further ordered the TSC to pay Cruickshank’s legal costs.
Cruickshank was represented by attorneys Navindra Ramnanan and Ricky Pandohee, while the TSC was represented by Makeda Browne-Alfred, Rachael L Jacob, Liane Thomas and Melissa Papoonsingh.
