Senior Counsel and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, Anand Ramlogan, will be assisting Mauritian lawyers led by Senior Counsel (SC) Sanjay Bhuckory in the Rajen Valayden’s case in the Supreme Court. He also represented UNC activist Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj, who had challenged the post-ponement of the local government elections before the Privy Council. In this exclusive interview given to “l’express”, Anand Ramlogan emphasises the fact that a government should not “tamper with the people’s right to vote because they have the right to decide who should govern them”.

You were the leading counsel in the successful appeal of Maharaj Balgobin v. Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago in the Privy Council, which invalidated the government’s decision to postpone municipal elections. What lessons are to be drawn from this judgement?
Elections are the lifeblood and heartbeat of a democracy. Ultimately, all institutions of the State derive their legitimacy from the authority that is given by the people. Officials must understand that they hold and exercise power for and on behalf of the people, and hence, they need the renewed consent of the people who elected them to govern. If I hire you to do a job for me for a fixed period, you simply do not have the right to tell me at the end of that period that you have decided to stay on. It is my right to decide whether I wish to keep you on and renew your contract based on how you have performed. It just does not work that way in a democracy: the voice of the people is the voice of God. An election should only be postponed in exceptional circumstances, where it is somehow impossible to allow persons to exercise their sacred right to vote. The recent Covid-19 pandemic, wars and natural disasters would be useful examples, but it should be noted that, even then, many countries in the world held elections, even during the pandemic.

The government in Trinidad was forced to call the local government elections because of the judgement from the Privy Council. It was a significant victory for the people and a telling blow to the government. The lesson is simple: don’t tamper with the people’s right to vote because they have the right to decide who should govern them.

You are assisting the legal team in the case Rajen Valayden v. The State of Mauritius, where the constitutionality of the law to postpone municipal elections in Mauritius is being challenged. How, if at all, can the Maharaj case assist the Valayden’s case?
There is an obvious parallel between the Maharaj case and the situation in Mauritius. The burning issue is whether the postponement of the elections is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, with respect for the right of the people to vote in municipal elections. Whilst the right to vote may not be enshrined in the Constitution, it is an important statutory right. When people vote for their representatives, they do so in the knowledge that it is for a prescribed fixed term, at the end of which they will have the right to either re-elect the representative or vote them out. Prolonging one’s tenure beyond the prescribed term gives the unforunfortunate impression that you are trying to run from the people who gave you the power to hold public office in the first place.

History has shown that this is a slippery road because it is anti-democratic and can lead to dictatorship. In any event, you can run from the people, but you can never hide from them. They know that they have the right to judge your performance because they elected you to serve them, and not the other way around.

How, according to your experience, will the Law Lords of the Privy Council approach the Valayden’s case, should the matter end up before our apex court in London?
It will be inappropriate to speculate how any court will treat the Valayden’s case. Maharaj is however a historic and landmark case that will have a radiating and illuminating effect on the delicate issues that arise for consideration.

As a counsel who regularly appears before the Privy Council, what advice would you give to younger members of the Bar when doing the same?
One man with a passion is a majority. Many senior lawyers, including leading members of the British Bar, felt that the Maharaj case was doomed to fail and had no merit. I was, however, passionate about the injustice to the people who were being deprived of their right to vote and soldiered on. The rest as they say is history.

Trinidad and Tobago and Mauritius are the two countries which have exceptionally maintained their right of appeal to the Privy Council, despite having attained the status of Republic. There is talk of abolishing this right of appeal. What are your views?
The people should have the right to decide whether they wish to abolish the Privy Council. It should therefore be put to a referendum. 95% of the people who seek justice depend on the local courts to decide their cases. In Trinidad and Tobago, the justice system is slowly improving, but it is still characterised by endless delays and a vicious cycle of adjournments, and this has eroded public confidence in the administration of justice.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The poor man gets his justice from the local courts. Instead of debating the abolition of the Privy Council, which deals with five percent of the cases, shouldn’t we focus on fixing the local justice system first? It is a bit like a family discussing what colour they should repaint their vehicle when the engine is malfunctioning. There is an obvious need for more courts and judicial officers, greater use of technology. The aim should be for a matter to come to trial within 1-2 years after it is filed and for judgments to be delivered within six months.

As former Attorney General of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious island nation which shares a lot in common with Mauritius, how to ensure that the democratic fabric and the rule of law be maintained at all times?
The right to vote is important to every individual, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, gender and status. The playing field is level as the rich man’s vote is equal to the poor man’s vote. This is why we should jealously guard and protect the sanctity of the right to vote. It is an issue that affects us all equally.
 

<p><strong>&laquo;It is not for Parliament, still less the Government, to choose the representatives&raquo;, disent les &laquo;Law Lords&raquo;.</strong></p>

<p><em>&laquo;The Government was wrong to postpone the local government elections and extend the life of the municipal corporations&rsquo; officials for one year.&raquo;</em> C&rsquo;est la décision rendue par le Conseil privé sur le cas de Ravi Maharaj, qui contestait le renvoi des élections municipales. L&rsquo;affaire a été entendue par les <em>Law Lords Reed</em>, Hodge, Briggs, Kitchin et Richards, le 15 mars 2023, et le jugement a été rendu le 18 mai. Le jugement souligne essentiellement que le peuple de Trinité-et-Tobago a le droit de vote. Les <em>Law Lords</em> ont expliqué : <em>&laquo;The right to vote out representatives is as important as the right to vote in representatives. At the end of the period for which they were elected, the electorate has the right to decide whether they wish the incumbent representatives to remain in office, assuming they stand for re-election. It is not for Parliament, still less the Government, to choose the representatives.&raquo; </em>Le Conseil privé précise également que, dans une démocratie représentative, nul autre que l&rsquo;électorat ne peut choisir les représentants.<br />
	<br />
	Cette décision est une victoire pour l&rsquo;ancien <em>Attorney General</em>, Anand Ramlogan. Après avoir essuyé un revers devant la Haute cour et la Cour d&rsquo;appel de Trinité-et-Tobago, Ramlogan avait porté l&rsquo;appel devant le <em>Privy Council</em>. En mars, les juges ont entendu les arguments. Dans l&rsquo;appel, le <em>Senior Counsel</em> avait soutenu que la juge Jacqueline Wilson de la Cour d&rsquo;appel s&rsquo;était trompée en rejetant consécutivement son dossier en novembre 2022 et en février 2023. La plainte de Balgobin-Maharaj reposait sur les amendements de 2022, qui avaient prolongé le mandat des conseillers du gouvernement local à quatre ans et qui avaient également permis de retarder les élections d&rsquo;un an.</p>