Rajnanan Ramsaran v The Permanent Secretary of The Ministry of Finance

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 282
• Year: 2025
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Rajnanan Ramsaran

and

The Permanent Secretary of The Ministry of Finance

Charles, J.

Suit No.: CV2024-01871

High Court

Appearances:

Claimant: Mr. Richard Jaggasar

Defendant: Mr. Russell Martineau S.C.; Ms. Amirah Rahaman instructed by Ms. Lianne Thomas

JUDICIAL REVIEW

THE CLAIM

Charles, J.

1 By Fixed Date Claim filed on July 30, 2024, pursuant to the Grant of Leave by this Court, the Claimant filed a Claim for Judicial Review against the Defendant seeking the following Reliefs:

• i. A Declaration that the Defendant has breached its statutory duty under Section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) to take reasonable steps to enable the Applicant to be notified of the approval or refusal as soon as practicable, but in any other case not later than 30 days after the date on which the request was duly made.

• ii. An Order of Mandamus compelling the Defendant to render a decision with respect to the Claimant's request within seven days, indicating whether his application has been approved or refused in accordance with Section 15 of the FOIA.

• iii. Alternatively, and/or additionally, a Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to access the requested information pursuant to its application under the FOIA.

• iv. An Order of Mandamus compelling the Defendants to deliver to the Claimant the documents requested by the Freedom of Information application request dated March 6, 2024, within seven days.

• v. Exemplary/aggravated damages.

• vi. Costs.

2 The Grounds of the application:

• i. The decision was unauthorised and/or contrary to the law.

• ii. The decision was in excess of the jurisdiction of the State.

• iii. The decision is a failure to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law.

• iv. The decision was a breach of the Principles of Natural Justice.

• v. The decision was an unreasonable, irregular or improper exercise of discretion.

• vi. The decision was an abuse of power.

• vii. The omission to act was fraud, bad faith, and for an improper purpose or irrelevant consideration.

• viii. The decision is in conflict with an Act, specifically the FOIA.

• ix. The decision was an error of law, whether or not apparent on the face of the record.

• x. There was an absence of evidence on which a finding or assumption of fact could reasonably be based.

• xi. There was no opportunity for the Claimant to respond to any findings or assumptions of fact.

• xii. The decision was a breach of or omission to perform a duty.

• xiii. The decision was a deprivation of a legitimate expectation.

• xiv. The decision was a defect in form or a technical irregularity resulting in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

• xv. The decision was an exercise of a power in a manner that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power.

3 By letter and Freedom of Information request dated March 6, 2023, addressed to the Defendant and to the Governor of the Central Bank, the Claimant made seven requests for documents over an eight-year period (2015–2023), namely:

• i. Foreign exchange allocation policies for the period 2015 to present.

• ii. Any document detailing the total amount of foreign exchange given/allocated by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago (CBTT) to commercial banks for distribution in the local markets for/between 2015–2023.

• iii. Any document detailing what action, if any, does the CBTT contemplate in response to the customers who are denied foreign exchange.

• iv. Any document detailing whether all commercial banks are granted equal sums of foreign exchange for distribution, and if not, what is the basis/policy/decision-making process for the distribution in local markets for/between 2015–2023.

• v. Any document detailing whether all commercial banks are granted equal sums of foreign exchange for distribution, and if not, what is the basis/policy/decision-making process for the distribution. Are banks required to submit formal requests, and if so, how often are those requests made, and what is the basis for the request? (Does the bank have to detail within its request a list of businesses and/or entities that are likely to benefit from this allocation?)

• vi. Any document detailing whether the CBTT in any way monitors the distribution of foreign exchange by commercial banks and/or whether there is any reporting mechanism which allows the CBTT to identify breaches in the distribution policy and/or prevent wastage of funds.

• vii. Documents related to internal or external audits and oversight of the CBTT's foreign exchange distribution processes from the period 2015 to present. This may include audit reports, findings and responses to recommendations.

• viii. Historical data on foreign exchange distribution from 2015 to present, inclusive of requests, denials and approvals.

4 On July 29, 2024, after thorough searches were completed and diligent efforts were made to process the requests, the Defendant informed the Claimant as follows:

“I refer to your letter dated March 8, 2024, addressed to the Ministry of Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank. I regret that the Ministry has not been able to provide you with a substantive response before now, but the Ministry has been conducting diligent searches to ascertain whether there were in its possession official documents of the description requested by you. There exist no such documents, and accordingly, the Ministry cannot disclose to your client any of the official documents requested by your client under the Freedom of Information Act:

• i. Document No. 1. Request – Foreign exchange allocation policies for the period 2015. Response – There does not exist any such official document.

• ii. Document No. 2. Request – Any document detailing the total amount of foreign exchange given/allocated by CBTT to commercial banks for distribution in the local markets for/between 2015–2023. Response – There does not exist any such official document.

• iii. Document No. 3. Request – Any document detailing what action, if any, does the CBTT contemplate in response to the customers who are denied foreign exchange. Response – There does not exist any such official document.

• iv. Document No. 4. Request – Any document detailing whether all commercial banks are granted equal sums of foreign exchange for distribution, and if not, what is the basis/policy/decision-making process for the distribution. Are banks required to submit formal requests, and if so, how often are those requests made, and what is the basis for the request? (Does the bank have to detail within its request a list of businesses and/or entities that are likely to benefit from this allocation?) Response – There does not exist any such official document.

• v. Document No. 5. Request – Any document detailing whether the CBTT in any way monitors the distribution of foreign exchange by commercial banks and/or whether there is any reporting mechanism which allows the CBTT to identify breaches in the distribution policy and/or prevent wastage of funds. Response – There does not exist any such official document.

• vi. Document No. 6. Request – Documents related to internal and external audits and oversight of the CBTT's foreign exchange distribution processes from the period 2015 to present. This may include audit reports, findings and responses to recommendations. Response – There does not exist any such official document.

• vii. Document No. 7. Request – Historical data on foreign exchange distribution from 2015 to present, inclusive of requests, denials and approvals. Response – There does not exist any such official document.

Pursuant to Section 23(1)(e) of the FOIA, the Claimant was informed through his Attorney-at-Law of his rights to complain to the Ombudsman in the circumstances where the Defendant maintained that the documents do not exist.

THE EVIDENCE

5 The evidence comprised Affidavits of the Claimant dated May 28, 2024, July 30, 2024 and an Affidavit in Reply filed on October 24, 2024. The Claimant's Affidavit in Support of the Fixed Date Claim mirrored the facts outlined in his Fixed Date Claim.

6 The Defendant's evidence comprised the Affidavit of Ms. Joann Balgobin, Information Specialist, Freedom of Information Unit, filed on September 18, 2024 and her Supplemental Affidavit filed on September 19, 2024, correcting an error in her principal Affidavit.

THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE

7 Ms. Balgobin, Information Specialist at the Ministry of Finance, deposed an Affidavit on behalf of the Defendant. She testified that upon receiving the Claimant's Freedom of Information request on March 6, 2024, she forwarded same to the office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance in accordance with established practice.

8 Ms. Balgobin indicated that the seven items requested by the Claimant were processed and diligent searches undertaken to locate the documents, notwithstanding the fact that the documents did not appear to fall within the Defendant's remit but rather that of the CBTT. Ms. Balgobin explained that the ‘burdensome nature of the searches required substantially and unreasonably diverted Ministry staff from their normal operations’. In the interest of completing the task of locating the documents requested, she engaged the Economic Management Division (EMD) of the Ministry to conduct searches from or about March 19, 2024, in relation to the Claimant's requests. Source documents comprising over 1,579 pages were retrieved and submitted to the Freedom of Information Unit for review in order to determine whether...