One of the officers sent on leave to facilitate an investigation into the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Credit Union has moved to the High Court challenging the decisions to send him on administrative leave and to suspend him from the union’s Committee of Management.
Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang yesterday granted orders nisi in favour of Major (ag) Lesley Ramlall, directing Chief-of-Staff Commodore Gary Best and credit union Chairman Colonel Enoch Gaskin to show cause why their respective decisions should not be quashed. The conditional orders were based upon an application by Ramlall through his lawyer Roysdale Forde.
Ramlall was one of the two officers sent on administrative leave from the GDF late last month when it announced that an investigation of the credit union was ongoing. Ramlall was the past Secretary/ Manager of the credit union, while the other officer is now the holder of the position.
In his affidavit in support of the motion for the orders, Ramlall stated that the decisions to send him on leave and suspend him from the union’s Committee of Management were “arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unlawful and unconstitutional and as such is therefore null, void and of no legal effect.”
He is contending that being sent on administrative leave has also prevented him from completing a course he had started which must be completed if he is to be considered for promotion to the rank of Major next year. He also contends that the Chief-of-Staff is not empowered under the Defence Act to send an officer on administrative leave or without a hearing if empowered to do so.
Best will now have to show cause why a Writ of Certiorari should not be issued to quash the decision made on August 23 contained in a letter signed by Lt Col Terry Benn, who instructed Ramlall to proceed on administrative leave. Gaskin will have to do the same in relation to his decision, which Ramlall has said is contrary to the Cooperative Societies Act. In addition, Ramlall said he has been advised that as an elected member of the Committee of Management, he could only be removed or suspended by a Special General Meeting of the Members of the union in accordance with the Cooperative Societies Act. As a result, he is contending that his suspension from the union was unlawful.
According to Ramlall’s affidavit, in July last year he was posted to the GDF Credit Union as the Secretary/ Manager. In September of the same year, he said he approached Gaskin, who is the Chairman of the credit union, proposing to buy a minibus for himself through the credit union. He said he informed Gaskin that he was not in possession of the customary 25% deposit but the Chairman nonetheless gave his approval and advised him to ensure that the minibus was paid for within the usual payment period of 36 months.
He said it was accepted procedure that the vehicles would be purchased by the credit union and a subsequent price determined by the union would be repaid by the member. The minibus was eventually acquired by the credit union on Ramlall’s behalf and the payments made to the supplier were approved by three members, including him, as was compulsory for any payment in excess of $200,000. The minibus came into the country in February last and not during the time Rmalall performed the duties of Secretary/Manager of the credit union, it was noted. The necessary taxes for the bus were also paid by the credit union along with some of the cost of repairs to the bus.
The bus was registered in his name in May and handed over to him but the final price for the vehicle, according to Ramlall, was never given to him, despite him asking several times for the figure so that he could commence his monthly payments.
In the same month, Ramlall, who had been transferred to the Second Infantry Battalion on the Soesdyke Highway, was nominated to serve as a Committee Member for the credit union. In the following month, he commenced attending the Senior Command and Staff Course, but it was suspended for two weeks to enable Ramlall and other officers to participate in the Joint Services Operation in Linden.
On August 25, one day after the operation was completed, Ramlall said, he received a text message from Lieutenant Colonel James instructing him to report to him immediately to assist in an investigation he was conducting and for him to take in the minibus. He reported and James suggested that he was trying to commit fraud on the credit union. After he informed that he had sought legal advice and his attorneys would be available within hour, he said, he was sent away.
Four days later, he received a letter instructing him to proceed on administrative leave immediately and as a result he was withdrawn from the course. He said the course was due to conclude on September 6 and at the time he was withdrawn only administrative work was left to be completed. The course was extended and is now scheduled to conclude on October, 2. He noted that he was sent on leave in spite of the fact that his continuance at work and on the course could in no way influence or prejudice any investigations into the matter with the credit union, which is a separate entity from the GDF.
According to Ramlall, he has been advised by his lawyer that being sent on administrative leave is in fact a suspension, which amounts to the imposition of a penalty, without any statutory or legal force and also that the penalty was imposed with him not being given a hearing.
Ramlall noted that since November, 2011, he has not been in anyway involved in the day-to-day operations of the credit union and he also has no authority over the employees of the union or access to any documentation in relation to its operations. As a result, he said, there is no objectively justifiable basis to believe he should be denied access to his place of work at Base Camp Stevenson, where the course is being conducted, or for him to interfere with the integrity of any investigation into any alleged misconduct, or any other relevant factor that would place the investigation or the interests of affected parties in jeopardy.
Ramlall’s affidavit also revealed that after receiving the letter from Gaskin suspending him from the credit union, he made a written complaint to Gaskin in his capacity as his Commanding Officer, seeking his intervention, pursuant to Section 172 (1) of the Defence Act. However, he has not received any response to date. He subsequently wrote to the Defence Board, in accordance with the Act, seeking redress but to date he has not received any response.
He said that it is virtually certain that the audit of the credit union would not result in him being implicated in any improper conduct but irrespective of the outcome he would have been denied the opportunity of completing a course which is crucial to his career advancement. Should he not be allowed to complete the course, Ramlall said, he would not be eligible for promotion to the substantive rank of Major next January.
