Industrial Court judges accused of delaying judgments to extend tenure

2026-03-28 - 02:04

Derek Achong Senior Reporter derek.achong@guardian.co.tt Some Industrial Court Judges have been accused of seeking to procure extensions in office by delaying their judgments. The allegation was made by lawyers for trade union activist and former Oilfield Workers’ Trade Union (OWTU) branch secretary Anthony Dopson in a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) sent to the court’s president Heather Seale, last week. In the correspondence obtained by Guardian Media, attorney Aasha Ramlal, of Freedom Law Chambers, said that Dopson was concerned with the timely delivery of judgments by the court. “An efficient administration of justice in the Industrial Court requires stringent policies and measures to prevent judges from seeking unnecessary extensions of time when their tenure is about to expire by deliberately delaying the writing and delivery of judgments in matters that have been heard but not determined,” Ramlal said. She suggested that both the State and litigants were affected by such a purported practice. “The matter would have to be heard de novo before a differently constituted panel given the inordinate pre-trial delay and notified pre-trial delays in the Industrial Court,” she said. “When faced with this predicament, the State is, in effect, held to ransom and the President is forced to give extensions to judges whose tenure has expired on the pretext that it is necessary for them to complete their outstanding judgments,” she added. Ramlal suggested that the issue is preventable. “Of course, this could easily be avoided by proper planning, by de-rostering judges at the appropriate time and mandating them to deliver their outstanding judgments by a specific deadline, failing which the president of the Industrial Court shall not recommend the renewal of the appointment of a judge to the Industrial Court,” Ramlal said. She requested the disclosure of the names of the judges whose tenure is due to expire within the next year and the number of outstanding judgments from each of them. She also sought the disclosure of the matters before the court’s General Services and Essential Services Divisions for which judgments have been reserved for more than six months. Ramlal also asked for the policy or measures implemented by Seale or her predecessors to ensure the timely delivery of judgments, and the number of judges that were recommended for reappointment since 2024, despite having outstanding judgments. Guardian Media obtained a memorandum from the Chief Legal Adviser in the Attorney General’s Secretariat to the Secretary to Cabinet from March 13, which purportedly dealt with instruments of appointment for seven members to both divisions. Five of the individuals previously served as Industrial Court Judges, while two were new appointees. The correspondence did not reveal whether any of the individuals, whose terms would effectively be extended, were included due to the delay issue identified by Dopson through Ramlal or if it was due to their satisfactory past performance. In the letter, Ramlal sought to pre-empt any contention that the requested information may be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. “Members of the Industrial Court, while independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, remain part of a public institution whose effectiveness and efficiency are matters of legitimate public interest,” she said. “Timely judgment is fundamental to the proper resolution of industrial disputes,” she added. She also claimed that the information would be useful for stakeholders of the court to determine its effectiveness. “Disclosure of this information would allow the public to assess whether adequate administrative measures are in place to ensure that reserved judgments are delivered within reasonable time frames and before the expiration of judicial appointments,” she said. Ramlal gave Seale 30 days in which to respond to the request before she files a lawsuit on Dopson’s behalf. The process for appointments and reappointments to the court has remained a contentious issue. Under the current legal framework, all judges except the court’s president are appointed by the T&T President on the advice of Cabinet for three and five-year terms. The court’s president is appointed by T&T’s President after consultation with the Chief Justice. The process has been criticised over the potential for political interference and possible partisanship by judges to secure reappointments. In May 2025, the current Cabinet led by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar rescinded a note on appointments and reappointments, reportedly drafted by former Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC. At the time, several trade union leaders welcomed the move as they were opposed to former government minister and Industrial Court Judge Lawrence Achong, who they blamed for several contentious decisions against their organisations, being given another term. Ironically, Achong was directly involved in a landmark lawsuit pursued by former judge Sam Maharaj over being denied a second term in 2003. Achong, who served as labour minister before being appointed to the court, claimed that Maharaj could “neither write, read nor speak properly” leading to him missing out on reappointment. The case was dismissed by a High Court Judge before being upheld by the Court of Appeal and United Kingdom-based Privy Council. In 2019, Justice Frank Seepersad ordered almost $3 million in compensation for Maharaj. The substantial payout was based on the salary benefits of a second term as he ruled that it was likely that the Cabinet would have granted the second term without Achong’s intervention. The assessment of the compensation was upheld by the Appeal Court in December last year.