A High Court judge has denied an injunction to prevent local government councillors and aldermen from continuing in office for a year after December 3.

On Wednesday, Justice Jacqueline Wilson refused to grant the injunction to political activist Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj as part of his challenge to the Local Government Reform Act.

Passed by a simple majority earlier this year, the act allows local government elections to be delayed by a year, which the government has said it wants to do.

Reading out the salient aspects of her ruling, Wilson said it was the court’s view that the least irreparable harm would be to refuse the injunction, because of the range of services provided by aldermen and councillors and the potential impact of their disruption.

But in assessing the merits of Balgobin-Maharaj’s main complaint, she agreed there was a serious issue to be tried.

Balgobin-Maharaj had asked the court to restrain all councillors and aldermen elected in the December 2, 2019, local government elections from acting beyond December 3, 2022.

Alternatively, he wanted the offices of all councillors and aldermen declared vacant from December 4.

In submissions on Monday, Balgobin-Maharaj’s lead attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, said the changes to the law could not be applied retroactively to apply to incumbent councillors and aldermen, as announced by Local Government and Rural Development Minister Faris Al-Rawi, but to future council members elected in the next local government elections.

He said for the law to take retroactive effect to apply to current councils, Parliament should have expressly said so, as the rights of the electorate to vote in an election when legally due would be affected.

Ramlogan said the interpretation by the minister, and by extension the Cabinet, that the amendments to the act applied to incumbent councillors and aldermen, was based on an error.

“It is an abuse of power because it is being done by the executive and not the legislature,” Ramlogan said.

Objecting to an injunction's being granted, the State’s lead attorney, Douglas Mendes, SC, advised the judge to determine where the least irreparable harm would lie in granting one, since she did not, at this stage, have to decide on the merits of the case.

“If we are correct, and the legislature has extended the terms of office of the current councils, then the effect of an injunction restraining them from acting in their offices will have the effect of shortening their term...

“It would mean that the will of the legislature will not be followed, and you will deprive electors of service,” he argued. He also warned that citizens would be deprived of the provision of service by councillors and aldermen if the court granted the injunction.

“There is no challenge to the legality of the amendment. What is being challenged is the minister’s interpretation.”

Wilson is expected to hear Balgobin-Maharaj’s substantive challenge in January.

Balgobin-Maharaj, a voter in the Maracas/Santa Margarita electoral district, said he was aggrieve