Ravi Balgobin Maharaj

In 2020, Maharaj, through his attorneys, issued a pre-action protocol letter threatening a lawsuit against the government, preventing the Stay-At-Home guidelines for the COVID-19 pandemic from infringing upon the Rights and Freedoms of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.^[13] While it was important for the government to implement strategies to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 infection during the height of the pandemic, the measures that were being put in place were overstepping the function and directions of the law and were creating a semi-militistic state that was unconstitutional. Through his actions, Maharaj was able to successfully get the government to rescind the order to illegally prevent the movement of people during this time.

In 2022, during the time that the majority of COVID-19 restrictions were being removed, Ravi again had to threaten the government with legal action, after they refused to allow Hindus the ability to access watercourses to perform their religious duties.^[14] While the government was allowing all citizens to access the beach for recreational use, there were still restrictions prohibiting anyone from visiting rivers, which directly affected the Hindu community who required access to these sources of freshwater for various religious ceremonies. While the government did relent in this decision as a result of the threat of legal action by Ravi, this was just another case of the infringement of basic human rights that were being inflicted upon the citizens of the country during the pandemic.

During the 2015 General Election in Trinidad and Tobago, the Election and Boundaries Commission (EBC) would take a decision on the day of polling to extend the hours that electors would be able to cast their votes by an additional hour. This decision would be challenged through the filing of a FOIA request made by Maharaj to the EBC regarding the decision making process that preceded this action. This FOIA would attract the attention of former Attorney General, Mr. Anand Ramlogan SC, who was in the process of filing a petition in the courts, which would also challenge the extension by the EBC. This would mark the first collaboration between Ravi Balgobin Maharaj and Anand Ramlogan on legal matters, as they would eventually go on to challenge dozens of decisions taken by the Government that have infringed upong the rights of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago in terms of their Constitutional Rights, access of information under the Freedom of Information Act, and Judicial Reviews and interpretations of legislation introduced by the government in carrying out their duties under the law.

In the matter of the extended polling times during the 2015 General Election, through Anand Ramlogan SC, Maharaj would file a judicial review seeking the court's clarification on whether the EBC had the constitutional power to make the decision.^[15] While the petitions that were brought before the Court were struck down however, High Court Judge Mira Dean-Armorer upheld the position of Ravi Balgobin Maharaj that the decision to extend the voting time by one hour was an illegal act taken by the EBC, stating that "The EBC, itself a creature of statute, ought at all times to abide by the clear dictates of the law and ought not to purport to dispense with those dictates even if faced with an apparently insurmountable problem."^[16] This ruling thereby prohibits the EBC from taking any such rash and illegal action in the future.

In 2016 Ravi filed a FOIA with the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago for information pertaining to mismanagement of the company by former Chairman Malcolm Jones, through access to witness statements of an arbitration matter that Petrotrin was a party. This request was initially denied by Petrotrin, and a request to file a Judicial Review of the FOIA Act and request for the witness statements was struck down in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, but through an appeal to the Privy Council Maharaj was given the go-ahead to file for a Judicial Review proceeding.^[17][18] While the government issued orders to Petrotrin to release the documents without further litigation following the Privy Council decision, this ruling is now a landmark case that allows public access to requests for witness statements under the Freedom of Information Act.^[19]

In 2021, Ravi Balgobin Maharaj successfully challenged the Trinidad and Tobago government's appointment process for the Commissioner of Police in another landmark legal ruling. High Court Judge Nadia Kangaloo upheld Maharaj's interpretation lawsuit, stating that the Police Service Commission must seek approval from the House of Representatives for both acting and substantive appointments of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners. This ruling effectively invalidated the acting appointment of Gary Griffith, whose tenure as Commissioner had ended in mid-August, as well as the acting appointment of DCP McDonald Jacob, which was also rendered void.^[20]

The ruling underscored that the selection process for a new acting commissioner could not commence until the Commission was reconstituted, as it was currently without members. Maharaj's case highlighted the legal requirements for appointing police leadership and addressed broader governance issues within the police service, emphasizing the need for accountability and adherence to constitutional protocols. The implications of this judgment were significant, as it left Trinidad and Tobago temporarily without a Commissioner of Police for the first time since Independence.

In 2023, Maharaj is again contesting another one-year extension granted to a Commissioner of Police, this time Mrs. Erla Harewood-Christopher, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated the powers of the Police Service Commission. Despite his efforts, the High Court ruled against him, stating that the extension was lawful under the Police Service Act. The matter is currently slated to be heard in the Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago.^[21]

In another prominent case, in 2023, Maharaj challenged the government's decision to proceed with local government elections amid various concerns. His argument focused on issues such as the adequacy of voter education, the readiness of the electoral process, and the impact of external factors like the COVID-19 pandemic on public health and safety.^[22] The Privy Council's ruling in his favour was seen as a significant victory against what he argued was an unconstitutional move by the People's National Movement (PNM) government to delay local elections. Maharaj contended that the government should prioritize the well-being of citizens by postponing the elections until conditions were more favourable. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that all voters could participate fully and safely in the electoral process. This challenge reflected broader public sentiments regarding transparency, preparedness, and the integrity of the democratic process in the country.

His calls for a postponement sparked discussions about electoral integrity and the government's responsibilities in safeguarding democratic practices. This matter is also a landmark ruling in the British Commonwealth as it marks the first time a court has recognized a partial right to vote in a local government election.

In other notable instances, legal action taken by Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has led to the definition of state entities such as the Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago being informed of their status as a public authority.^[23]

Ravi has also been influential in the development of legislation, in 2023, through the issuance of a pre-action protocol letter, the government was forced to recall Parliament in an emergency session and implement correction to impractical elements included in an Amendment to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Procurement Act 2015.^[24]

In 2020, Maharaj was also successful in getting a High Court Ruling to prevent the Comptroller of Customs and Excise of Trinidad and Tobago from expanding the charter of prohibited items for import into the country, which would have been infringing upon the Constitutional Rights of citizens.^[25]

Moving forward, Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has a number of matters before the court, including a challenge to the decision of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Honourable Brigid Annisette-George, to deny his Right to respond to statements made against him during a Parliamentary Debate by the Member of Parliament for Port-of-Spain South, Honourable Keith Scotland.^[26][27]

Ravi also has been granted leave by the Court to challenge the decision of the Integrity Commission to terminate their investigation into the purchase of properties by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago,^[28] which were not properly filed in his Declaration of Income, Assets and Liabilities. The failure to properly list these real estate properties in his filings is a breach of the Integrity of Public Life Act in Trinidad and Tobago and requires the Integrity Commission to forward the information to law enforcement for further investigation. The failure of the Integrity Commission to abide by its mandate is a failing of the organization and a Judicial Review is required to determine whether the organization has acted illegally in this matter.

In 2017, Ravi filed a FOIA request with the Strategic Services Agency to clarify how many wiretapping operations were undergoing without the approval of a Judge. This request was refused and a Judicial Review was filed challenging the agency's failure to disclose the information, and the matter has been before the Courts for the past seven years. In October 2024, the Court of Appeal reserved their ruling in the matter to be handed down at a later date.^[29]

In October 2024, the High Court partially upheld a request for information pertaining to legal fees paid by the South West Regional Health Authority to Roger Kawalsingh.^[30] The request for information was made in 2021 when Roger Kawalsingh was also serving as a Director in the Police Service Commission. In her ruling, Justice Joan Charles agreed that the matter was of public importance, but wanted to view the requested invoices before making a determination of whether it should be released to the public.