High Court dismisses UNC activist’s claim against ex-Speaker

UNC activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj at a Parliament event in 2023. - File photo

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review claim filed by UNC activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj challenging the former Speaker's refusal to allow his written response to statements made about him in Parliament, to be read into the official record.

In a ruling on November 26, Justice Joan Charles held that the decision of then-speaker Bridgid Annisette-George, made under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, fell squarely within Parliament’s exclusive control of its internal proceedings and was therefore immune from judicial scrutiny.

“The TT Constitution expressly incorporates and vests all of the privileges and immunities of the United Kingdom parliament in the House of Representatives.

“I agree with the respondents’ submissions that the Speaker’s decision is not reviewable on the ground that the applicant’s fundamental rights have been infringed.

“I agree that the Speaker’s decision is covered by the parliamentary privilege of exclusive control over its internal affairs and freedom of speech,” the judge said.

Charles added, “The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the only adjudicator on the interpretation and application of the Standing Orders.

“Whether the statement of any member is false or had no proper basis are matters into which the Speaker of the House of Representatives could not look into.

“This court has no jurisdiction to review the Speaker’s decision on this complaint. The Speaker...is entitled to rely upon the privilege of Parliament to regulate its own internal affairs, in this case the content of the parliamentary record without interference from the courts.

“The Standing Orders are necessary to the proper functioning of the House of Representatives and are protected by parliamentary privilege and neither the courts nor any quasi-judicial body have the right to inquire into their contents or to question whether a particular part of the Standing Orders is necessary or lawful.”

The ruling came after Maharaj sought leave to challenge the Speaker’s refusal issued May 10 and May 16, 2024, arguing that they breached his constitutional right to protection of the law and violated principles of natural justice.

He contended that he was denied a fair opportunity to reply after a Member of Parliament made remarks that he said harmed his reputation.

Bridgid Annisette-George, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, at an event in June 2024. - Photo by Faith Ayoung

Charles said the court could not intervene because the Speaker’s authority under Standing Order 18 is a recognised category of parliamentary privilege; specifically the legislature’s exclusive control over debates and internal proceedings.

She said that courts may determine whether a category of privilege exists, but cannot review how Parliament exercises that privilege in a particular instance.

Standing Order 18 allows a non-member who is named or identifiable in parliamentary debate to submit a written response requesting that it be incorporated into the parliamentary record. The Speaker must consider the request but is expressly barred from assessing the truth of the statements made in either the debate or the response.

Maharaj had asked the court to declare the Speaker’s refusal unfair, irrational, illegal, and unconstitutional, and to remit the matter for reconsideration. He also sought orders of certiorari and declarations tied to alleged breaches of Section 4(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to protection of the law.

The Speaker, represented by Deborah Peake, SC, and the Attorney General, represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, argued that the decision was part of Parliament’s internal affairs and protected by long-established parliamentary privilege.

They maintained any judicial examination of the Speaker’s reasoning or motives would violate the constitutional separation of powers. Justice Charles agreed.

The claim and the application for leave were both dismissed. The parties were directed to file submissions on costs within one month.

Anand Ramlogan, SC, Jayanti R. Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Aasha Ramlal, Natasha Bisram and Vishaal Siewsaran represented Maharaj. Ravi Heffes-Doon, Avion Romain and Nikita Ali represented Annisette-George.