The fixing of an appointment for the Appeal Court to hear Government’s appeal of Justice Frank Seepersad’s judgement on the property tax issue didn’t depart from established practice and protocols concerning urgent applications.
Registrar of the Supreme Court, Jade Rodriguez, made this clear yesterday in a letter to attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, who is representing former People’s Partnership minister Devant Maharaj in the challenge of Government’s process regarding the submission of valuation return forms by the public in the property tax exercise.
Justice Seepersad last Friday granted a temporary halt of implementation of the forms and Government had signalled its intent to appeal on Monday (May 22). But the Appeal Court put off the matter to June 6 when it sat on the appeal issue on Monday.
The Opposition had accused Government of falsely claiming it “had appealed” the judgement, but Government had maintained it had received confirmation its appeal would have been heard on May 22.
Opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar had then claimed Court Registrar Rodriguez had advised United National Congress’ legal team that no appeal had been filed and the Appeal Court had not convened an emergency sitting for May 22 for Government’s appeal. Persad-Bissessar threatened to take Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, who had spoken on the issue in Parliament last Friday, to Parliament’s Privileges Committee for allegedly misleading statements on the matter.
Rodriguez s letter yesterday noted Maharaj’s concerns on the matter in a May 21 letter from Ramlogan. She added that Maharaj’s decision to publicise Ramlogan’s communication on the matter, without giving her an opportunity to respond, “may have led observers to assume” Ramlogan intended “to impute collusion” between the Judiciary and AG in the filing of Appeal Court matters.
“... An imputation which I categorically reject,” Rodriguez stated.
She said the situation also “besmirched” her reputation.
Rodriguez listed what transpired as follows:
• May 19: Rodriguez received a call at 6.53 pm from Deborah Peake, counsel for the Commissioner of Valuations, who wished to “move” the Appeal Court on an urgent matter concerning Seepersad’s judgement.
• Peake specified a notice of appeal was being prepared, but in order to be heard that night, she was willing to address the court via oral application.
• At 6.56 pm Rodriguez consulted with the most senior Appeal Court judge - Justice Mendonca - who indicated insufficient reasons were presented to have the court that night. He instructed that if an appeal notice was filed/forwarded, the appeal would be listed for May 22 at 9 am.
• Rodriguez communicated this to Peak at 7.16 pm.
• On Saturday May 20, Rodriguez was contacted at 9.36 am by Ramlogan, who enquired if notice of appeal on the matter was filed. She said it had not.
• At 5.29 am that Saturday, Rodriguez received draft notice of appeal via email from Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon (Attorney General’s office). She communicated with Soo Hon and Ramlogan’s attorney (Ms Lutchmedial) confirming the Appeal Court’s date on Monday
• At 6.59 pm that day, Rodriguez forwarded the notice of appeal to Ramlogan.
Rodriguez asked Ramlogan to note that it was settled practice in hearing of urgent appeals for the appellant to notify the respondent of the date and time for hearing. She said it wasn’t the court’s duty to notify the intended respondent of this.
She noted that on Monday (May 22) there were 10 matters listed for the West court and only two for the East Court. She said Mendonca instructed her on May 20 to list the appeal for the East Court.
