RAMBARRAN CARRIES A TORCH FOR VICTIMS OF POLITICAL SPITE

CONSIDER the people through the years who suffered political oppression but did not have the will and financial resources to challenge the injustice in court. 

Jwala Rambarran’s telling legal victory against wrongful dismissal as Central Bank Governor by the Rowley administration resonates for the legions of victims of political spite and malice. 

Rambarran’s legal success is the embodiment of fair play and due process for the public officers who, for various reasons, ran afoul of vengeful administrations, dating back to Dr. Eric Williams. 

Williams, who became insecure and unreasonable toward the end of his 25-year stewardship, exiled several senior and respected officers, often for whimsical reasons. 

So, too, have other prime ministers, some more than others. 

A few casualties sought redemption before the justice system, but most licked their wounds and retreated from the all-powerful national leader, in some cases sacrificing their pensions and other accrued financial benefits. 

Regrettably, the cost of the tyranny against Rambarran would not be personally borne by Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley or Finance Minister Colm Imbert, architects of the dismissal. 

Taxpayers would pay both the multi-million-dollar damages to Rambarran and his attorneys’ sizable fees. 

Rowley and Imbert have escaped with the proverbial slap on the wrist. 

In the initial ruling on the matter, Justice Devindra Rampersad stated that Rambarran’s termination was “seriously flawed” and that he had been deprived of his constitutional rights. 

Such rights were protection of the law and a fair hearing. 

The appeal against the judge’s ruling would deal only with legal matters. 

There would be no review of the substance of the blatant prejudice meted out by a new PNM administration against a senior public officer perceived to be an agent of the previous government. 

The Imbert-Rambarran relationship was doubtlessly defined by bad blood, similar to what existed in previous duels between national leaders and officers with whom they clashed. 

Imbert gave Rambarran short shrift, and this was evident in a brief and tense meeting between both senior office-holders. 

The Finance Minister evidently brought a lack of confidence – and a predetermined plan – to relations with the Central Bank Governor, and there was plainly no harmonious working relationship. 

Imbert publicly quoted Rambarran as making certain unflattering statements about the state of the treasury, which were flatly denied by the latter. 

There was muted speculation that then-President Anthony Carmona was reluctant to do the dirty and send Rambarran packing. 

During Carmona’s absence from the country, his stand-in Christine Kangaloo, acting on the Cabinet’s advice, sacked Rambarran. 

The government had declined to provide legal justification for the move. 

Rambarran accessed the court with an application for judicial review. 

The government hid behind the fig leaf that the governor had breached the Central Bank Act by revealing the names of large users of foreign exchange. 

Independent minds may question whether that “crime” justifies the summary dismissal of one of the country’s most senior public officials and whether taxpayers aren’t entitled to know where scarce forex is dispersed. 

Note that Rambarran and Imbert had also tangled with respect to the former governor’s attempts to land a major job with the International Monetary Fund. 

The minister frustrated that effort. 

Rambarran also won that matter. 

In fact, Justice Frank Seepersad said the sequence of events collectively has the potential to “lead a reasonable person to conclude” that Imbert “may have an entrenched bias” against Rambarran. 

Could that be considered a raw abuse of power? 

Was the Rowley Government guilty of Trini-style “bad mind” against Rambarran? 

The sacked governor had stated some time ago that he was “subjected to the worst form of malicious political spite and victimisation” and that he had been unable to get a job because of government interference. 

This is little comfort for other victims of manifest malice and dreadful discrimination, but Rambarran courageously carried a torch for justice and fair dealing. 

This is particularly noteworthy in a land in which many are kowtowing to an increasingly autocratic regime, declining to stand for legal process and fair treatment. 

Hopefully, the Rambarran saga soon comes to an end and he receives reasonable compensation and restoration of his public image. 

But would this revealing conflict temper governments from misuse of power and prejudice against disfavoured officers? 

We shouldn’t count on it. 

Through the years, courts have made damning statements against autocratic leaders, which all became water on duck’s back. 

But we should demand accountability, efficient running of independent institutions, absolute access to Freedom of Information and other relevant statutes, and speedy justice. 

A redeemed and restored Jwala Rambarran could also be the symbol of that struggle.