Attorney for the Highway Re-Route Movement (HRM) Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, has shot down Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s claim that the HRM has filed no application before the Privy Council to expedite a hearing of an appeal over an injunction to stop work on the Debe to Mon Desir segment of the Pt Fortin Highway. Maharaj also accused the AG of misleading the country, saying Ramlogan knew his consent was requested for an urgent hearing.
The application is being made, Maharaj said. Ramlogan, who maintained yesterday that the HRM had made no application, said:
“I was astonished to be informed that no appeal has been lodged at the Privy Council by Dr Kublalsingh and his lawyers... no papers have been filed with the Privy Council or served on the State’s Privy Council agents as of this morning (yesterday)... and that I find rather surprising, given the call for us to consider an expedited hearing.”
The AG said he had consented to the grant of leave to enable an appeal to the Privy Council. Saying he could have objected, Ramlogan said he chose not to do so as he did not want to deny Kublalsingh and the HRM the right to take their case to the highest court. “It was my hope that such leniency would lead to a better understanding of the State's position, highlight our overriding concern for the rule of law and the plight of Dr Kublalsingh and his followers,” Ramlogan said.
Saying his sympathy and compassion for Kublalsingh could not justify a violation of the legal procedures that govern an appeal to the Privy Council Ramlogan added that must be balanced against the sympathy and compassion he felt for the tens of thousands of commuters who were forced to leave and return home when dark while still having to suffer through hours of frustrating, distressing and depressing traffic daily.
But Maharaj said from the outset Ramlogan did not take the necessary steps to give an undertaking to the court for the status quo of the Debe to Mon Desir section of the highway to be maintained until the court was able to determine the substantive issues in the constitutional claim. Maharaj said the chronology showed the lawyers for the HRM, before making the application to the Privy Council, sought the AG’s consent for an expeditious hearing.
“The Highway Re-Route Movement will now inform the Privy Council that the AG has refused to consent to the expeditious hearing of the matter and would now apply to the Privy Council to have the matter determined. “It is therefore misleading for the AG to give the impression that no application is before the Privy Council,” he added.