The State has appealed a last minute injunction granted to Opposition attorneys stopping the proposed appointment of two new High Court judges originally carded for this morning.
Within hours of High Court Judge Frank Seepersad delivering his decision around 2 am this morning after a marathon hearing, attorneys representing the Office of the Attorney General filed their appeal on the issue.
The T&T Guardian understands that they sought an emergency hearing and were assigned one at 10 this morning. The appeal is expected to run simultaneously with another over an injunction granted two weeks ago blocking the Ministry of Finance's drive to collect and process valuation returns forms needed for the collection of property tax.
The injunction instructing the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) to advise President Anthony Carmona to defer the appointments, scheduled for 11.30 am today, was applied for by Opposition attorneys representing former agriculture minister Devant Maharaj, whose name is also listed on the property tax lawsuit.
Maharaj's lawyers claim the appointments might be affected by the eventual judgment in his ongoing case challenging the composition of the JLSC.
In his 22-page decision on the injunction, Seepersad said: "Having regard to the fact that the court does feel that there is a serious question to be tried, that damages in the circumstances cannot be viewed as an adequate remedy and, more importantly, that the balance of justice results in a circumstance where it is just, convenient and necessary for the court to intervene, as a greater risk of injustice can be occasioned to the public in general if persons are appointed to the office of Judge in a circumstance where the JLSC lacks the constitutional authorisation to enable any such appointment."
He also stated that there was no need for the appointments to be made immediately.
"At this stage, the court has no information before it to suggest that there is a dire need for more judges or more importantly, that the administration of justice is severely compromised and that this current state of affairs is such that without the two proposed appointments severe prejudice would be occasioned to members of the public. In the absence of any such evidence, the court feels compelled to protect the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive claim," Seepersad said.
In his substantive lawsuit, Maharaj is claiming the JLSC was performing its duties without its full complement of five members. His lawyers contend that shortly after the lawsuit was
filed last month the JLSC had admitted it was operating without its full complement of members, leading to the eventual appointment of Ernest Koylass, SC, on May 17.
The other members of the JLSC are Chief Justice Ivor Archie, retired judges Roger Hamel-Smith and Humphrey Stollmeyer and head of the Public Service Commission (PSC) Maureen Manchouck.
Maharaj is also challenging Stollmeyer's position, as the Constitution states that the JLSC members are the Chief Justice, head of the PSC, a sitting or retired judge and two "persons with legal qualification...not in active practice as such". His lawyers claim that a retired judge does not fall in the last category.
