THE PRIVY Council’s interim decision on July 18, in relation to the fate of some 1,200 Ministry of Finance workers, is a significant step towards the full implementation of the TT Revenue Authority (TTRA). It is already a victory for the Government, even if a final ruling from the law lords on the constitutionality of the TTRA is outstanding.
Whatever London decides later this year, the Cabinet has reason to celebrate, given the long and fraught history of this matter which has served as a stress test of our legal system. At one stage, a judge was forced to recuse herself; mere weeks ago a mix-up over the terms of a Court of Appeal stay caused chaos.
Before this week, staff had been asked to choose – as though peering through a crystal ball – their future.
They could voluntarily retire on terms agreed with the Chief Personnel Officer. They could be transferred to the new authority. Or they could be sent elsewhere within the public service commensurate with their position. A deadline, the latest of many, of July 31 was set.
Lawyers for the Public Services Association, led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, opposed this, arguing the status quo had been and should be preserved given the distress and unfairness involved in being forced to wager.
But the Privy Council, after considering the issue for a few minutes in chambers at the tail end of a lengthy hearing, declined to do so, citing an undertaking given by the State’s lead attorney, Douglas Mendes, SC.
“Nothing,” he said, “will happen until your Lordships have rendered a decision. If you say the act is unconstitutional, then that’s it.”
Yet plainly, the State has been moving ahead regardless.
Hundreds of letters were reportedly issued amid the stay confusion. Parliament approved top staff in April. The authority already has a board and a three-year plan. It has been finalising recruitment.
Should London find the TTRA unlawful, there is no reason why new simple-majority law, more “proportionate” to constitutional rights and tax policy, cannot be passed. Mr Mendes is not the Cabinet. The Cabinet is not Mr Mendes.
Meanwhile, too many questions arise for the workers, even if some do stand to benefit from significant severance payments.
How long will transfers take? Are suitable posts guaranteed?
If workers resign, when is that effective? If the court invalidates the TTRA, will they be able to return? Or is the “choice” merely declaratory?
Civil servants are banned from expressing political views. Does the mere indication of a choice not place a worker in a difficult position?
Even if, after a worker makes a decision, “nothing will happen,” the damage to their career might already be done.
The post No choice but to choose appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
