The Highway Re-route Movement (HRM) and its leader Dr Wayne Kublalsingh have been refused permission to add five expert witnesses to their pending lawsuit challenging the Debe to Mon Desir segment of the Point Fortin Highway.
During a hearing of the case in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Justice James Aboud rejected the group’s application, as he said the proposed evidence of the witnesses—two medical doctors and three international environmentalists—was irrelevant in proving the group’s case against the State.
“The real purpose of the evidence would have been to establish that the environmental concerns of Dr Kublalsingh were legitimate, but the question in this case is whether the State made promises by which it was bound,” Aboud said.
As a result of the decision, Aboud also struck out the evidence of six expert witnesses which were presented by the State to defend against the claims which the group was hoping to add to the lawsuit.
In their constitutional motion filed on August 3, 2012, the group is contending that the Government contravened its constitutional rights to “life, security, enjoyment of property, to freedom of expression and freedom of association” by building the highway without consulting them properly.
However, the group says it is not opposed to the entire highway extension project but only a specific segment. They are claiming that they have a legitimate expectation that the Government would have abided by the findings of a study done by the Joint Consultative Council for the Construction Industry (JCC), which was led by former Independent Senator Dr James Armstrong. Armstrong’s report suggested that the project be put on hold for additional environmental tests to be conducted.
As a secondary issue, the group is seeking a declaration that the alleged actions of former national security minister Jack Warner and a group of soldiers, in destroying their Debe protest camp and arresting Kublalsingh and some of the group’s members on June 27, 2012, were illegal.
Narrow scope
Last year, both Aboud and the Court of Appeal refused to grant the HRM an injunction stopping the project. The issue, which sparked Kublalsingh’s decision to go on a second hunger strike, is currently before the United Kingdom-based Privy Council.
Addressing the legal teams for both parties yesterday, Aboud said he hoped that his ruling would clear the way for an early anticipated trial later this year.
“Having narrowed the scope of the case, I hope progress can be accelerated in the coming months. The trial would move a lot quicker if we focus on the bullseye,” Aboud said.
The HRM is being represented by Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Fyard Hosein and attorney Rishi Dass. The State’s legal team includes Russel Martineau, SC, Deborah Peake, SC, Kelvin Ramkisson, Gerald Ramdeen and Shastri Roberts.
Another case management conference will be held before Aboud on March 27.