The National Assembly passed the Judicial Review Bill yesterday, saying that the legislation testifies to a system of transparency and accountability in the country.
Opposition parties supported the legislation, calling it “excellent” and “a watershed moment” but some speakers questioned why government waited so long before it tabled the bill. The new law is to provide for an application to the High Court for relief by way of judicial review. It also deals with other related matters.
Previously, applications for relief against administrative decisions were made by way of prerogative writs with limited remedies available. Once enacted, the legislation will also change the law as it regards the right to appeal on an application arising from a criminal cause or matter.
Attorney General Charles Ramson made specific reference to Clause 22 of the Bill, which speaks of the right to appeal, saying that he “personally wrote it in” following the Barry Dataram extradition debacle. Ramson said Dataram was able to escape because the law had no provisions for appeal in matters arising from a criminal cause of matter, which included habeas corpus proceedings as in the Dataram case. “…I felt very aggrieved with the decision in Dataram because he was able to escape … and the security forces were somewhat aggrieved. I put in Clause 22 myself, specifically to meet that kind of lacuna that existed in the law,” Ramson said, noting that the new provisions also includes decisions by the Full Court, which he called “the offending court” in the Dataram matter.
Ramson said the Bill was “modern” and he tied it to a policy of good governance. He conceded the administration was “belated”, but noted that it has decided to bring the judicial process into the 21st century.
Under the law, a person or groups of persons adversely affected by an administrative act or omission would be entitled to make an application for judicial review in any written form or manner; there are also provisions for persons who are poor, differently-abled and or socially and economically disadvantaged.
The Bill also offers new remedies on an application for judicial review; expanding on the prerogative remedies previously available. The Court would be able to grant an injunction; a conservatory order; restitution or damages; an order for the return of property and a declaratory judgment or an advisory judgment or a prospective judgment. Previous remedies included an order of certiorari; an order of prohibition and an order of mandamus.
PNCR-1G MP Clarissa Riehl called the legislation “a watershed moment” but bluntly asked why the government stalled in bringing it to the House.
She praised the section which made provisions for poor people to apply for judicial review, saying that it is speaks to the progressive nature of the legislation. “It’s a good Bill,” she said, adding that it erodes the need for persons to apply for prerogative writs and simply requires an application for judicial review and that the court will grant the necessary remedies.
AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan also praised the legislation for bringing to the citizenry “more armories” against improper administrative action. He said a perusal of the Bill would reveal that it is an improvement on anything that was enacted in the region within recent years.
But Ramjattan criticized the administration for failing on enforcement of laws and for flouting judicial rulings. He cited a Court of Appeal ruling regarding scruntineering funds and GECOM, noting that government showed total disregard for the ruling. He argued that adherence to the laws is as important as the laws. “Don’t give me nice, classy and glossy and then enforcement is not there,” he added.
PPP/C Anil Nandlall said the legislation was significant because it makes the government accountable to citizens and for people to question state agencies. He said the government is “baring its breasts” to the public by enacting the law since it opens it to scrutiny from all sections of the society.
Shortly after he wrapped up his presentation, Nandlall was embroiled in a brief row with PNCR1-G MP Basil Williams after the latter made a comment relating to a court matter in which they both appeared. Williams, while praising the legislation and Nandlall’s presentation, noted that Nandlall—“his junior”—was forced to withdraw an application because he erred in filing it. Williams was forced to withdraw the statement which Nandlall objected to.
Williams said his party supported the passage of the legislation because the provisions are important. He said too that it was a welcome for legal practitioners. He also quipped that government is definitely leaving office next year, suggesting that the bill was tabled “to make things easier for them when they are in opposition.”
