The decision by the Local Government Commission (LGC) to discipline Town Clerk Royston King based on recommendation from a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the operations of City Hall was yesterday nullified by Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall.
Ruling on a challenge brought by King, Justice Morris-Ramlall declared that the LGC acted unlawfully when it delegated its investigatory powers to an entity which was not a local government organ or authority and therefore the inquiry, its conclusions, findings, recommendations and the evidence obtained by it have all been declared null and void.
As a result, King, who had been dismissed for gross misconduct, remains Town Clerk with the status quo being that of September 21st, 2018, when he was sent on administrative leave.
Speaking with reporters after the ruling, King said he felt vindicated.
“I’m very happy. I have always exercised great faith in the judicial system. Today justice has been done and I have been vindicated,” King said.
King had been dismissed via a letter, dated January 23rd, 2019, that cited gross misconduct as the reason for the dismissal, which was based on the findings of the CoI.
The CoI was led by retired Justice Cecil Kennard, who had found that King along with then Mayor Patricia Chase-Green were “not working in the best interest of the city” and recommended that he along with several other officers be disciplined for abuse of office and other violations.
It has also been recommended that a forensic audit be conducted at City Hall by the Audit Office and that criminal charges be laid against defaulting officers if it reveals criminal misconduct
King specifically had been accused of gross misconduct and abuse of office, among other things.
LGC Chairman Mortimer Mingo had told Stabroek News in January that the decision to terminate King’s services was a “unanimous decision of the Commission,” which followed the embattled Town Clerk’s failure to offer a defence to the charges when he appeared at a disciplinary hearing on January 12th.
In delivering her ruling, the judge noted that while the commission relied on the provisions of Article 78A of the Constitution and Sections 14 and 19 of the Local Government Commission Act to establish the CoI, it misconstrued their function and “committed an error of law”
Article 78A provides for the LGC to be established and deal with as it deems fit all matter related to the regulation and staffing of the Local Government Organs, while Section 14 of the Act grant it the power to initiate and conduct investigations with all the privileges and immunities of a CoI and Section 19 provides for the LGC to delegate in written form to any local government organ or authority [the right] to perform duties and discharge functions on its behalf. “The intention of the Local Government Commission Act is clear. The respondent [the LGC] is permitted to delegate its powers but only within the local government system,” the judge ruled.
A similar argument had been raised by King’s attorney when he appeared before the CoI October last.
Attorney Maxwell Edwards had argued that while Section 14 of the LGC Act grants the LGC the power to conduct inquiries in line with those conducted under the Commission of Inquiry Act, this power is granted solely to the “commission” and it was not vested with the power to establish a CoI separate from itself.
Further, he argued that while Section 19 of the LGC Act grants the commission the right to delegate its functions, it is only allowed to delegate to “any local government authority,” which the CoI was not.
At the time, Justice Kennard noted that one has to consider the purpose of the LGC Act, which was to give certain powers to the LGC, including the right to investigate complaints at the local government level.
He added that in cases of such a magnitude, where the commission does not have the “competence to investigate the matter… it demands that the enquiry be conducted by trained legal persons rather than laypersons.”
Kennard repeatedly stressed the “magnitude” of the investigation and concluded that in interpreting legislation, one must apply a commonsense approach to the situation, which would show that in setting up the CoI the LGC acted commendably.
Morris- Ramlall disagreed and further noted that having determined that the CoI was unlawful, the Court sought to establish whether the LGC had conducted an independent investigation.
In this regard, based on letter written to King by the LGC, the court concluded that the commission “blindly acted on the recommendation of the CoI”.
“There was no independent or additional investigation,” Morris-Ramlall noted, before adding that the commission appears to have “merely studied the report,” following which the institution of disciplinary charges against King was “automatic and obedient.”
As a consequence, the judge said that the decision to institute disciplinary action against King cannot stand and must be quashed.
The court issued two Orders—the first quashing the decision to set up the CoI and the second quashing the decision to institute disciplinary action against King.
It refused to grant an Order of Mandamus which was being sought by King to be reinstated to the position of Town Clerk or be paid all of his superannuation benefits until retirement on January 29th, 2020.
Also refused was an order to pay King his superannuation benefits, costs and aggravated/exemplary damages for the deprivation of his benefits while on administrative leave, pension rights under Article 149B, the right to work under Articles 149A, along with compensation for public embarrassment and humiliation.
According to the judge, an order for reinstatement would be inappropriate in the circumstances of the case particularly since there has been no challenge to the decision to send King on Administrative leave.
The CoI had been mandated to “Investigate the administration and operations of the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown; [investigate] the reason for and the process by which a motion of no confidence on the Town Clerk was dealt with by the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown; and generally to investigate any matter that may be brought to the attention of the Commissioner during the Inquiry that would adversely affect the administration and operation of the Municipality of Georgetown.”
