State to pay Kublalsingh $.4M for demolition of protest camp by army

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the State acted unlawfully when it deployed the Defence Force to demolish a protest camp erected by Dr Wayne Kublalsingh and the Highway Re-Route Movement (HRM) in 2012. The judgment, delivered by Justice of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, affirmed that the State violated the constitutional rights of the protesters and must pay damages.

In a 70-page ruling, the court declared: “The actions of the then Minister of National Security in requisitioning and/or deploying the Defence Force for the purpose of forcibly removing the occupants of the protest camp and demolishing it were unlawful, contrary to the rule of law, and contravened the respondent’s rights under section 4 (b) of the Constitution to the protection of the law.”

It added: “The demolition of the protest camp was unlawful and also contravened the respondents’ rights under section 4 (a) of the Constitution.”

The State was ordered to pay $350,000 in constitutional damages—including vindicatory damages—plus $50,000 to Kublalsingh for assault and battery, and $15,000 to another protester for assault.

While the State previously succeeded in the High Court in securing a declaration that the protest unlawfully interfered with public works at Mon Desir and a permanent injunction barring Kublalsingh and others from returning, the Court of Appeal found that the manner of the camp’s removal was unconstitutional.

The Court also rejected findings by the trial judge that the protesters’ broader rights to freedom of expression, conscience, and association were infringed by the demolition.

“To the extent that the Trial Judge found that there was a breach of the right to freedom of expression, he clearly erred,” the Court held. “The existence of the protest camp was not integral to the exercise of those rights.”

It concluded that any incidental breach of freedom of association was not sufficient to warrant additional constitutional declarations.

The court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the use of military force in a civilian matter breached constitutional protections. “The involvement of the army was contrary to the rule of law and due process of law,” the judgment stated.

It also dismissed a key part of the respondents’ claim—alleging a breach of legitimate expectation based on promises to halt the highway works pending consultation. The court ruled there was no clear or unambiguous representation by the State, and thus, no basis for such a claim.