In a landmark public sector remuneration ruling handed down this week, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad has rejected a judicial review challenge brought by the top two leaders of Trinidad and Tobago’s Police Complaints Authority (PCA), overturning their claims that recommended pay cuts were the product of an unfair and unconstitutional process.
The case centered on challenges by PCA head David West and Deputy Director Michelle Solomon-Baksh to salary recommendations put forward in the Salaries Review Commission (SRC)’s 120th report, which was formally adopted by the national Cabinet in 2024. The proposed salaries for the two roles set out in the report are lower than the current remuneration West and Solomon-Baksh receive. The pair secured court permission to file their judicial review claim last year, arguing the SRC’s process violated core legal standards.
Counsel for the two PCA leaders argued that the failure to consult directly with them on their role-specific remuneration breached the principles of natural justice and dashed their legitimate expectation of consultation, a step the pair noted had been included in past salary review processes. They also contended that the entire procedure used to set the new pay scales was legally irregular.
But Judge Seepersad rejected every plank of the claimants’ argument, concluding the SRC’s review was neither materially unfair nor procedurally flawed. In his ruling, Seepersad explained that requiring individual interviews and consultation for every position covered by the SRC would impose crippling, unfeasible financial and human resource burdens on the independent commission. The SRC’s mandate already covers 325 distinct offices and more than 950 individual office holders across the public service, and extending one-on-one consultation to every role would grind the commission’s work to a halt.
The judge also emphasized that comprehensive salary reviews inherently carry the possibility of downward as well as upward remuneration adjustments. The SRC had publicly committed to a full review of all public sector allowances and benefits, Seepersad noted, and that process cannot be reasonably interpreted to guarantee only pay increases for any role. He confirmed that the SRC’s scoring of West and Solomon-Baksh’s positions was conducted objectively and fairly, per accepted professional evaluation standards.
On the question of legitimate expectation, Seepersad found the SRC acted reasonably in updating its review processes to align with evolving international best practice. He stressed that procedural fairness does not require rigid adherence to outdated working methods, noting that the Constitution mandates progress rather than institutional stagnation. Modern, objective, professionally accepted job evaluation systems are a fully legitimate tool for setting public sector remuneration, he added, and courts have no authority to block lawful procedural improvements that align with global standards.
“Viewed in this context, the methodology adopted by the Commission does not reflect a departure from the requirements of procedural fairness but an affirmation of them,” Seepersad wrote in his ruling.
The judge also underscored the importance of maintaining the constitutional separation of powers between the state’s independent institutions. He noted that the Constitution creates separate bodies with distinct mandates not because any are infallible, but to ensure clear division of responsibility: the judiciary safeguards legality, the SRC evaluates and sets public sector remuneration, and the executive branch governs. Constitutional equilibrium, he argued, depends on each body sticking to its own role and respecting the authority of others.
Concluding his judgment, Seepersad confirmed the SRC had acted fairly, objectively, and fully within its constitutional mandate, leading him to dismiss the challenge in its entirety. West and Solomon-Baksh were represented by a legal team led by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and Attorney Anthony Bullock, instructed by Attorney Imran Ali. The SRC was represented by Senior Counsel Jason Mootoo and Attorney Tamara Toolsie, instructed by Attorney Miranda Julien. The Cabinet, which joined the proceedings as an interested party, was represented by Shalini Singh, instructed by Attorney Vincent Jardine.