THREE Appeal Court judges have reserved their decision on the State’s appeal of the ruling of the High Court in favour of former Central Bank governor Jwala Rambarran for wrongful dismissal from the position in December 2015.

On Wednesday, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar heard submissions from Russell Martineau, SC, who leads the State’s legal team, and Rambarran’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan, SC.

It was Martineau’s contention that Justice Devindra Rampersad got it wrong when he ruled in the former governor’s favour.

In his ruling in June 2022, Rampersad held Rambarran’s dismissal was illegal. He also ruled the termination was in breach of the Constitution.

He contended that the Government unlawfully revoked his appointment in breach of his constitutional right to due process and fairness.

Rampersad also ruled that if there were concerns that Rambarran’s alleged conduct was in breach of aspects of the Central Bank Act and Financial Institutions Act, both had provisions for criminal charges to be laid which Rambarran would have had to defend before a magistrate.

“Parliament intended that if there was a breach of either of the acts, that there was a remedy to deal with that breach,” he said, as he noted that Imbert did not reveal the full reasons for his recommendation.

Rambarran was fired as Central Bank governor on December 23, 2015, after acting president Christine Kangaloo revoked his appointment on the advice of the Cabinet. He had been appointed on July 17, 2012.

At the time, it was said he was removed for being “discourteous” to the Government by making public details of foreign exchange, announcing on December 4 that year that TT was officially in a recession, and disclosing the names of the companies that were the biggest foreign-exchange buyers.

On December 22, 2015, Rambarran was summoned to a meeting with Finance Minister Colm Imbert and was presented with a press release from the bank, dated December 8, 2015, which noted the sentiments expressed by the private and financial sectors after Rambarran’s statements.

Two days after that meeting, Rambarran was served with the instrument of revocation of his appointment, which gave no reasons or grounds for his dismissal.

Martineau argued a magistrate did not have to determine misconduct, that was for the Cabinet.

“I find this very troubling,” he said of the court’s ruling.

He also said when Rambarran was called into the meeting with the minister and shown the release on the confidentiality issue, he would have known what was alleged against him.

“What do you expect the minister to be talking about? It could not be a discussion about anything other than a breach of confidentiality.”

Martineau said the trial judge went “awry” in his findings. He called on the Appeal Court to look at the case again since, according to him, context was important.

“He would have known why he was dismissed. It must have been obvious to him that his job was on the line.”

He also contended that even if the court found