(Trinidad Guardian) Youth Development and National Service Minister Foster Cummings is set to file a lawsuit against the State over a “leaked” Special Branch report that alleged criminal conduct by him.
Cummings’ lawyer, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, revealed the proposed novel constitutional claim while addressing a press conference at the Kapok Hotel, Port-of-Spain, yesterday morning.
Maharaj claimed that his client contacted the Office of the Police Commis-sioner after Opposition Senator Jayanti Lutch-medial revealed the contents of the confidential report while addressing a political meeting on May 5, 2022.
Referring to the report, Maharaj said, “The allegations in that report were baseless. They were un-investigated. There was no evidence to support any of the allegations, and there was no person identified in that report as making any allegations.”
Maharaj noted that his client provided information and evidence to refute all the allegations. He claimed that Cummings decided to pursue legal action after former police commissioner Gary Griffith, who was at the helm of the T&T Police Service (TTPS) when the report was issued in 2019, noted that the allegations were unsubstantiated in a radio interview, and current Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher ignored requests to withdraw or retract the controversial report.
Maharaj questioned how the report, which was meant to be in the possession of the Special Branch and the Police Commis-sioner, was released. “How is it that a secret Special Branch report, marked secret, ended up in the hands of an opposition senator, who then published it at a public political meeting?” Maharaj asked. Maharaj noted that his client was not opposed to the TTPS investigating him but was concerned over the effect the publication of the report had on his personal and professional reputation.
“So what Minister Cummings was saying is that I do not want you to stop your investigation. You could investigate how much you want, but until you conclude your investigations, take off all those defamatory things and baseless things from the records of the police service,” Maharaj said.
“The minister is adamant to vindicate his character and reputation.” Cummings has a passionate belief that a person’s good character and reputation are the greatest assets any person can have, Maharaj said. Maharaj admitted that Cummings could have filed a judicial review challenging the decision but would be forced to file a novel constitutional case based on a recent United Kingdom legal precedent as the deadline had expired to file the former.
Explaining the delay, Maharaj said, “He was trying to avoid any claim against the State and getting the Police Commis-sioner to correct this injustice.” Maharaj was careful to note that Cummings’ proposed case would not be against his Cabinet colleague, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, but rather Armour’s official office.
He pointed out that under the State Liability and Proceedings Act, the AG’s Office is listed as the defendant in claims over breaches of constitutional rights by state officials. “I wish to explain this so that it can be fully understood because the minister is not filing a personal claim against the Attorney General but is instead filing a claim against the State with the Attorney General representing the State,” he said.
He noted that when the lawsuit was first threatened in October last year, the AG’s Office claimed that it was unmeritorious. The AG’s Office claimed that no one was authorised to disclose the report to Lutchmedial, and the State could not be held liable unless Cummings could identify the individual responsible for the leak.
Cummings’ legal team challenged the position advanced in subsequent correspondence. Maharaj revealed that Cummings had decided not to benefit from any compensation that he may be awarded if he is eventually successful in the case.
“I wish to make it clear that the minister made it clear that he is not interested in getting damages for himself … Any damages he gets would be put in a special fund for the benefit of his constituents, especially the young people,” he said. Maharaj also mentioned Cummings’ ongoing defamation lawsuit against Lutchmedial, which was filed after she made the comments on the political platform.
Cummings’ lawyers sought the injunction as they claimed that Lutchmedial leaked confidential documents, including a source of funds declaration form, two letters of award, and a cheque that all referenced Cummings. In refusing the application for the injunction, Justice Nadia Kangaloo ruled that some of the information Cummings sought to classify as confidential could be in the public domain as he is a politically exposed person.
“The evidence before the court at this stage suggests that Ms Lutchmedial took a responsible, methodical, reasoned, and careful approach and exercised due diligence in confirming the authenticity of the documents which the whistleblower left on her windscreen and before making statements on May 16 and May 17,” she said.
Justice Kangaloo also noted that Lutchmedial could afford to pay Cummings compensation if her statements were eventually found to be defamatory in his substantive case. Cummings challenged the decision but subsequently withdrew the appeal.
In February, the Court of Appeal upheld a separate challenge over Justice Kangaloo’s decision to refuse Cummings permission to file evidence to rebut Lutchmedial’s defences of fair comment and justification.
The appeal panel noted that it was important for the additional information to be placed before the court and noted that it could be rejected when the case eventually goes to trial. Cummings is also being represented by Ronnie Bissessar, SC, Rikki Harnanan, Kingsley Walesby, Varin Gopaul-Gosine, and Nicholas Sant.
Guardian Media contacted Armour via WhatsApp yesterday evening to comment on the case. He did not respond, up to late yesterday.
Jayanti: Is this an attempt to intimidate the police?
Opposition Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial yesterday questioned whether the proposed lawsuit from Cummings over a leaked Special Branch report on him is an attempt to intimidate the police.
Lutchmedial, who is being sued by Cummings over her revealing the report in 2022, raised the question as she responded to his proposed claim that was announced by his lawyers during a press conference yesterday morning.
In a press release, Lutchmedial pointed out that Cummings’ lawyer, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, admitted that the contents of the 2019 report were still being investigated by the T&T Police Service (TTPS).
“They have reminded the country, however, that to date, Minister Cummings has not been cleared of the allegations contained in an intelligence report which was leaked to me,” she said.
“How can a person’s name be cleared if there is an ongoing investigation? Is it that People’s National Movement (PNM) officials deserve special treatment from the TTPS?” she asked.
She suggested that the TTPS only took meaningful action in relation to the report after she referred to it in 2022.
“Either way, no one has the right, in my view, to demand that a report be removed from the records of the TTPS if an investigation is ongoing,” she said. “No one has a right to demand that a report be given priority or to dictate the timeline within which the TTPS must investigate.”
Stating that there was nothing novel or special about Cummings’ proposed case, Lutchmedial said, “If the minister thinks that the whistleblower who leaked the report violated his rights and he wants to sue the State then he can file his claim like thousands of other aggrieved citizens do each year.”
Lutchmedial also took aim at Cummings’ claim that he would place any compensation he eventually gets in his claim against the State in a fund for his constituents. “The MP appears worried about retaining his seat, as he should be,” she said.
Lutchmedial also questioned whether the case would be vociferously defended by the Office of the Attorney General as in other cases against the State.
“I also wait with bated breath to see which attorney hand-picked by the PNM will be briefed and no doubt handsomely compensated in this matter brought by Minister Cummings, and I hope they fight this litigation with the same vigour and determination with which they fought to compel the Auditor General to amend her report,” she said. “I hope the chosen one won’t be one of those who are refusing to declare their earnings,” she added.
