T&TEC claims 'misrepresentation' by ex-legal counsel in doctor's battle over power lines

T&TEC head office on Park Street, Port of Spain. - File photo

A doctor’s legal battle against the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) has taken a dramatic twist after the utility’s legal department moved to correct the court record about what it says were misrepresentations made by its former external counsel.

T&TEC legal officer Candace Price filed an affidavit in the High Court acknowledging that previous statements to the court about the non-existence of key policy documents were inaccurate.

“It has since come to the commission’s attention that counsel for the defendant may have represented to the court that T&TEC did not, in fact, have any documents containing the requested information,” Price said in the affidavit filed on October 30. “That statement was inconsistent with the commission’s records and was never an instruction given to counsel.”

Price said the commission deeply regretted the “unfortunate misstatement” and wanted to “set the record straight.” She said that T&TEC did not intend to mislead the court or Dr Fayard Mohammed, the claimant, and that it remained committed to transparency and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

She advised that disclosure was made on October 24 in accordance with Justice Frank Seepersad’s October 15 order, which gave the commission 14 days to produce its policy on installing high-tension power lines over private property.

Seepersad ruled that T&TEC had breached its statutory obligations under the FOIA by failing to respond to Mohammed’s September 26, 2024, request. Mohammed had filed the request after power lines were installed on his private land without disclosure of the governing policy.

Senior Counsel Keith Scotland, Asha Watkins-Montserin, and Keisha Kydd-Hannibal previously appeared for T&TEC. At a hearing on November 6, Scotland asked for time to respond since, according to him, their instructions were from the commission.

He was given until November 17 to do so.

Seepersad, who convened Thursday’s hearing after receiving Price’s affidavit, admitted to being concerned about the issues raised and the “implications that can flow.”

Mohammed’s attorney, Farai Hove Masasai, noted that in the separate claim filed by his client against T&TEC, an affidavit had been filed by the commission in January, which also articulated the position that there was “no written policy and that those are instructions from the commission.”

In adjourning the matter to November 24, Seepersad assured, “The court, very cognisant of its ultimate role in ensuring the integrity of the administration of justice, will treat the matter with the degree of urgency that it requires.

“The court's concern is if the policy is available now, how was it not available then in January of this year when we were conducting the management of the hearing?”

Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, who now leads Ganesh Saroop and Candice Ramkhelawan for T&TEC, admitted there was a “changing of the guards” at the commission’s legal department and would endeavour to get “to the bottom of this and assist the court to get to the truth and root of the matter.”

In his ruling, Seepersad had dismissed T&TEC’s arguments that its refusal was justified under the sub judice rule or amounted to preventing a “fishing expedition.”

“There is simply no statutory exemption made for the sub judice rule or for the prevention of fishing expeditions,” the judge said, calling the commission’s reasons “devoid of merit.”

He declared that T&TEC’s failure to decide within the legally required 30 days was “unreasonable and irrational,” adding that administrative inefficiency or lack of resources could not excuse statutory non-compliance.

“The breach of statutory obligations violates public trust, erodes accountability and transparency, and undermines the entire legislative scheme of the FOIA,” Seepersad said.

He further ruled that T&TEC’s delay violated Sections 13, 15, and 23 of the FOIA and frustrated Mohammed’s legitimate expectation of fair and lawful treatment.

Seepersad rejected the utility’s claim that the judicial review was an abuse of process. He stressed that FOIA applications were an essential means for citizens to access public information — not “litigation tactics.”

In addition to ordering disclosure, the judge awarded costs to Mohammed, who was also represented by attorney Chelsea Edwards.