In a definitive judgment reinforcing the separation of powers, the Trinidad and Tobago High Court has emphatically dismissed a judicial review claim brought by United National Congress (UNC) activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj. The case centered on former House Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George’s refusal to incorporate Maharaj’s written rebuttal into the official parliamentary record following statements made about him during legislative proceedings.
Justice Joan Charles, delivering her November 26 ruling, determined that the Speaker’s decision—made pursuant to Standing Order 18 of the House of Representatives’ Standing Orders—falls squarely within Parliament’s exclusive domain over its internal affairs. This jurisdiction, the court affirmed, enjoys constitutional protection from judicial interference.
The court recognized that Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution expressly incorporates all privileges and immunities of the United Kingdom parliament into its own House of Representatives. Justice Charles concurred with arguments presented by state attorneys that the Speaker’s determination did not constitute an infringement of Maharaj’s fundamental rights and remained shielded by parliamentary privilege.
“The Speaker of the House of Representatives serves as the sole adjudicator regarding the interpretation and application of Standing Orders,” Justice Charles stated in her written decision. “Matters concerning the veracity or basis of members’ statements lie beyond the Speaker’s purview—and consequently outside judicial review.”
The legal challenge emerged from Maharaj’s contention that remarks delivered in Parliament had damaged his reputation and that the Speaker’s refusal to allow his response violated his constitutional right to legal protection and natural justice. He sought declarations that the May 2024 decisions were unfair, irrational, and unconstitutional.
However, the court emphasized that Standing Order 18—which permits non-members referenced in debate to submit written responses—explicitly prohibits the Speaker from evaluating the truthfulness of either the original statements or the rebuttal. This procedural mechanism, Justice Charles noted, exists primarily as an internal parliamentary accommodation rather than a legally enforceable right.
Representing the state, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and Deborah Peake successfully argued that judicial examination of the Speaker’s motives would violate constitutional separation of powers. The court agreed, dismissing both the claim and leave application while directing parties to submit cost arguments within 30 days.
The ruling reinforces the autonomy of parliamentary proceedings throughout Commonwealth jurisdictions and establishes significant precedent regarding the limits of judicial intervention in legislative affairs.