Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - Hier 20:22

Appeal Court upholds Jwala Rambarran’s wrongful-dismissal lawsuit

The State has suffered a major defeat as the Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal against a High Court ruling that found former Central Bank Governor Jwala Rambarran was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to millions of dollars in compensation. On February 11, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar ruled Rambarran was unfairly dismissed, upholding a previous High Court decision that his termination breached his constitutional rights. The 149-page decision, written by Bereaux, said: “In my judgment, the respondent was not treated fairly. He was not told the specific allegations against him nor was he given any real opportunity to respond to the charges.” Although the judges agreed on the breach of Rambarran’s rights, they did not agree on compensation, reducing some of Justice Devindra Rampersad’s awards. Rambarran's award still amount to approximately $4 million. According to the Court of Appeal, the Cabinet had a duty to inform Rambarran his termination was being considered and the reasons for it, while also allowing him an opportunity to respond. The failure to do so, they ruled, rendered the dismissal “unfair, illegal, null, void, and of no effect.” The judges also found Rambarran’s dismissal violated sections 4(b) and 5(2)(e) of the Constitution, which protect the right to due process and procedural fairness. “By Minister (Colm) Imbert’s own admissions in cross-examination, he did not inform the respondent that his dismissal was under active consideration. “The minister also admitted that he did not invite the respondent to take legal advice on the accusation that he (the respondent) was in breach of the law. “Minister Imbert contended in cross-examination that the complaints against the respondent were in the public domain and so that it was unnecessary for him to point the respondent to the particular complaints received." But, the judge wrote, “I do not consider that that was sufficient. The matters in the public domain did not signal to the respondent that his dismissal was under active consideration by the Cabinet and was indeed imminent, such as to give him the opportunity to deal with that. “Urgency or administrative necessity does not excuse the failure to give the respondent an opportunity to be heard in this case. “The uproar did not precipitate some fiscal emergency which required immediate action in regard to the respondent.” Bereaux also noted that Imbert said he allowed 14 days to elapse before he met with Rambarran while waiting for legal advice. As well as being treated unfairly by not being told the specific allegations against him nor given any opportunity to respond, “At minimum, the minister was required to tell the respondent that the Cabinet was considering terminating his appointment and why, while permitting the respondent the opportunity to respond. “That was the crucial duty of fairness in this case. Anything less rendered the decision to terminate unfair, illegal, null, void and of no effect. That duty was plainly not discharged. The judge was correct to find that the termination was in breach of sections 4(b) and 5(2)(e) of the Constitution.” In disagreeing on the financial compensation Rampersad had awarded to Rambarran, Bereaux and Mohammed struck down bonus payments totalling $1.3 million, a prorated sum of $751,551.67, and $175,000 in vindicatory damages. Rajkumar, however, was prepared to award Rambarran 50 per cent of the bonus amount – $982,798.33 – as well as $100,000 for distress and inconvenience. The AG had appealed Justice Rampersad’s entire ruling, while Rambarran had filed a cross-appeal arguing that the compensation, including vindicatory damages, was too low. The judges agreed to the State’s request for a stay of execution, but only for 14 days and not the 21. Russell Martineau, SC, said he wanted time to consider the judgment to advise his client on an appeal to the Privy Council. Rambarran’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan, SC, resisted a lengthy stay, saying his client was financially ruined while waiting for judgment. Rambarran was appointed Central Bank Governor in July 2012 and had his contract terminated in December 2015 on the advice of the Finance Minister. His dismissal came shortly after he publicly announced Trinidad and Tobago was in a recession and disclosed the names of some of the country's largest foreign-exchange users. In June 2022, Rampersad ruled in Rambarran’s favour, holding that his termination was “seriously flawed” and violated his constitutional rights to a fair hearing and protection of the law. The judge held the decision was “illegal, null, and void,” and if there were concerns that Rambarran had breached the Central Bank Act or Financial Institutions Act, charges should have been laid, allowing him to defend himself in court, rather than immediate dismissal. Rampersad awarded $7.54 million in damages, with $1.93 million deducted in taxes, representing salary and benefits he would have earned had he remained in office until July 2017. However, Rambarran was not awarded compensation for unused vacation leave. The State challenged the ruling, arguing that Rampersad erred in ruling Rambarran’s termination was unlawful. At the appeal, Martineau submitted that the Constitution allowed the Cabinet to advise the President to revoke the Central Bank Governor’s appointment on the grounds of misconduct, without the need for a criminal conviction. He insisted Rambarran’s constitutional rights were not infringed, as claimed. Martineau argued termination for misconduct did not require a formal conviction. “This case is not about misconduct. It is about an opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken,” he argued. He also contested the claim that Imbert’s actions prevented Rambarran from securing a senior adviser role at the G-24 Secretariat in Washington, DC. While Rampersad ruled Imbert acted unfairly by forwarding a press release about Rambarran’s dismissal to the recruiter, Martineau maintained that Imbert simply provided an accurate reference. “This is more than a quantum leap...It is wrong and unfair,” Martineau said. Additionally, Martineau argued that vindicatory damages of $175,000 were unwarranted, asserting that Rambarran should have received only his salary and benefits for the remainder of his term. Ramlogan defended Rampersad’s ruling, saying Rampersad’s ruling could not be challenged on the basis of the evidence. He insisted Rambarran was pressured into disclosing information about foreign-exchange shortages by mounting public scrutiny. “He was under the microscope, spotlight, and immense pressure to account for the country’s foreign exchange,” Ramlogan said. He also said vindicatory damages were justified as it was proven that Imbert’s actions led to the loss of the G-24 job opportunity. Ramlogan also argued that the court had no grounds to consider whether Rambarran’s disclosures breached confidentiality laws, as the matter was not before it for review. “None of the findings of fact were outrageous, and can be challenged,” he added. Also appearing for the AG were Jason Mootoo, SC, and Romney Thomas. Kent Samlal, Jayanti Lutchmedial-Ramdial and Vishal Siewsaran appeared with Ramlogan for Rambarran. The post Appeal Court upholds Jwala Rambarran’s wrongful-dismissal lawsuit appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.