Privy Council rules upholds judgment in discrimination cases involving former PM Manning

The Privy Council on Monday upheld a decision of the Appeal Court in Trinidad and Tobago in the matters involving former senior public servants Feroza Ramjohn and Ganga Persad-Kissoon.

Former Prime Minister Patrick Manning had appealed the decision of the local courts, which ruled in favour of Ramjohn and Persad-Kissoon.

Ramjohn is a former permanent secretary who challenged Manning's decision to revoke her overseas appointment to the London High Commission because she was deemed a threat to national security.

In 2009, the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal ruled against Manning and questioned his powers of veto.

Lord Brown stated that Manning did not act in good faith noting that based on "the evidence put before the reviewing courts, the decision-making processes can be seen to have been unfair to the respective officers concerned."

Persad-Kissoon's case involved Manning's intervention to deny Kissoon a promotion to the office of Commissioner of State Lands although he sscored high on the merit list.

The law Lords stated, "The prime minister acted contrary to the rules of natural justice by making a decision to object to the appellant's promotion without informing him of the factors that militate against him and affording him the opportunity to make representations in his favour."

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan represented Ramjohn and Persad-Kissoon in their battle against Manning. He was in private practice at the time.

In a media release Monday Ramlogan called the decision "an historic judgment in favour of two distinguished career public servants whose claims of unfair treatment by the former prime minister have been vindicated."

He added, "It shows that the Office of the PM is not above, but subject to, the law. The procedure used to deny these officers their just due was unfair and irrational. 

"It is the first time that the veto given by the Constitution to the Office of the PM was challenged in the highest court. The judgment will provide guidance to in the future."

The AG noted, "Both officers have since retired from the public service but their careers suffered untold and unquantifiable loss and damage by the improper use of the veto to deny career advancement. 

"These cases lasted seven years and demonstrate the need for quicker justice lest the injustice suffered be compounded by the delays in the justice system."