Cabinet, not PM, decides
July 20, 2000
By Kim Johnson
FENTON Ramsahoye QC yesterday completed his arguments for the State in the CCN constitutional motion.
CCN alleged that Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, out of animosity and bias, had ignored St Clair King’s Statutory Technical Advisory Committee’s report, which shortlisted the CCN application for a cellular telephone licence, and substituted the Gillette Group’s application.
As such, CCN claimed an infringement of its constitutional right to equality before the law and equal treatment by a public official.
The State responded that the CCN application failed to meet the requested conditions, that the decision complained of had not yet been made, that a constitutional motion was inappropriate, that animosity on the part of politicians did not preclude them from public office.
It was Cabinet, not the Prime Minister, which issued licences to operate a cellular system, said Ramsahoye. Cabinet was not just a rubber stamp, he said, but was the decision-maker. And Cabinet has not yet decided.
So, argued Ramsahoye, there was no question of unequal treatment.
Questioned by Justice Sebastian Ventour about a 1992 Cabinet minute delegating to the Prime Minister authority to grant wireless licenses, Ramsahoye suggested it might perhaps have applied to wireless systems, not cellular systems which combine wireless and telephone.
CCN should have complained to Cabinet, insisting on determination, insisting its case be heard, said Ramsahoye. If a Cabinet decision was made and the company still objected, then a request for judicial review should have been filed.
“Judicial review proceedings should have been taken, not constitutional proceedings,” he said. “We’re on safer grounds if we stick to old principles when in administrative matters a decision-maker has not been fair.
A constitutional issue is not raised by clothing a judicial review in constitutional garb.”
The constitutional garb was the allegation that Panday’s public attacks on CCN showed a predisposition to bias. “It’s not unusual to find men in Parliament or on the hustings condemning each other,” said Ramsahoye, “That is all the cut and thrust of politics. And then they go to their offices and do their public duties.
“The four speeches had nothing to do with cellular licences.”
Ramsahoye also argued that judicial review was more appropriate because another party, the Gillette Group’s Open Telecom, would be affected. “This constitutional motion is against the AG, Open Telecom is not party to it as if it were a judicial review,” said Ramsahoye. “That’s why this case as presented has a multitude of problems.”
But a judicial review wouldn’t be any more successful, said Ramsahoye, precisely because no decision has been taken yet by Cabinet.
Rejecting the CCN arguments minutes before he left for the airport, Ramsahoye said that the company’s applications simply failed to qualify; and St Clair King’s report was careless in shortlisting CCN. The application was considered, and that's all that was needed to establish equal treatment.
Ramsahoye asked the court to inquire into the damages the State has suffered by the delay caused by the hearings in granting licences.
“I didn’t anticipate this case would take this time and so many cases would be quoted,” said Justice Ventour. “I’ll have to read these cases, so I’ll have to reserve my decision.”
Hearing was set for next Wednesday, after which CCN attorney Alvin Fitzpatrick SC arranged for Ramsahoye to stand him a half-pint of bitter in London.
July 13, 2000: Ragbir shows short memory
July 14, 2000: No to TSTT, yes to foreign cable monopoly
July 19, 2000: PM free to be hostile
Back / Home
|