A decade old discrimination case with racial and religious underpinnings, ended last month with an award to the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, of almost $3 million that will be taken from the Treasury.

Taxpayers will have to pay millions more to the lawyers hired by the State to defend an action found to be indefensible by the local High Court, Court of Appeal and ultimately the Privy Council.

More money will have to be found to pay the attorneys who represented the Maha Sabha and its Central Broadcasting Services Ltd (CBSL) which was refused a broadcast radio licence by the Patrick Manning-chaired Cabinet.

The same Cabinet that approved in record time, the application made by Citadel Ltd, co-owned by People’s National Movement supporter Louis Lee Sing.

The conduct of the State in this matter was so atrocious that one of the largest vindicatory awards ever granted-$500,000-was granted to the Hindu organisation.

The compensation was ordered in a September 22 order by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, who said in a 36-page judgment that ’what this case showed was discrimination, plain and simple’.

Despite the judicial slapdown two weeks ago, no one from government has responded or defended the decisions.

Justice Boodoosingh’s comments were damning.

He said:

’I am fully mindful that there was no finding here of breach of the right of religion nor was there a finding that the unusual treatment was on the basis of religious persuasion. But the circumstances presented cannot ignore the reality of what both CBSL and the SDMS are, and who would constitute its main following’.

He said ’also significant to note is that the reason why unequal treatment has occurred is very often difficult to say with precision. Where it is practised, the offender is hardly ever going to confess the true reason. In addition, discrimination may not even be motivated by overt factors. It may be institutional or systematic’.

’...what this case showed was discrimination, plain and simple. One applicant (Citadel Ltd) was not well placed, or evenly placed, as CBSL, was granted a licence in record time.

’Another was made to wait, and wait for years (See side story) before they were even told their application was refused.

’And it was refused on grounds which ignored that litigation had taken place and a course of dealings had occurred,’ said the judge.

Justice Boodoosingh went on to say that ’in a developing State where so many citizens depend on the resources of the State, and where the State’s reach is wide, equal treatment from public authorities can be regarded as being among the most important of the constitutional rights.

’The State’s involvement reaches from school places to scholarships, from housing to employment, and from utilities to social welfare.

’It concerns where resources are to be allocated, and correspondingly, where resources are to be denied. It concerns who benefits from scarce resources and who does not.

’It concerns who gets a decent place to live and who does not. It relates who gets a job and who is left without. It impacts on who is promoted and who is not’.

And for corporate citizens, Justice Boodoosingh said, it impacts on which businesses are given the chance to make profits and which ones ’don’t even get a chance to fail’.

He said the consequences of unequal treatment was particularly severe in a plural society.

Justice Boodoosingh warned:

’Ours is multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-religious. There are many competing interests. Perception of unequal treatment can lead to alienation. Some may be made to feel they are second or third class citizens.

’Far worse are the consequences of persistent and continuous discrimination. We need only look at other societies to see how easily discrimination can take prosperous and seemingly stable States into violent conflict and barbarism. This is a greater danger the more scarce resources become’.

The case

In August 2000, the SDMS applied for a radio licence.

In September 2000, the CBSL applied for a radio licence.

At the time, the system that applied regarding the grant of radio licences was that the application would be evaluated by the Director of the Telecommunications Division.

Applications which the Director approved were submitted with his recommendation to the Minister, who would bring the matter to Cabinet.

Cabinet would advise the President to issue a licence on an appropriate frequency.

In October 2000, the Director of the Telecommunications Division wrote the Permanent Secretary of the relevant Ministry informing that CBSL had met the requirements and there was no objection to the granting of the licence.

In August 2002, a licence was granted to Citadel Ltd, which applied in March 2001. Citadel was however incorporated only in August 2001, and its application  seen by the Telecommunications Division in March 2002.

At the time Citadel got its broadcast licence, CBSL had heard nothing further about its application.

Having heard of the grant to Citadel, CBSL and the SDMS filed a constitutional action against the Attorney General in August 2002.

Justice Carlton Best ruled in February 2005 that there was unequal treatment of CBSL’s application in relation to Citadel but found it unnecessary to consider if there were breaches of section 4(h) and 4(i) of the constitution.

The case was appealed.

The Court of Appeal found there was unequal treatment and also considered it unnecessary to consider breaches of the constitution.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the matter be placed before Cabinet within 28 days for its consideration.

The SDMS and CBSL appealed to the Privy Council which ruled July 1, 2006 that the State provide CBSL with a radio licence without delay. It took the State two months before a licence was granted.

Justice Boodosingh ordered more than $2 million in compensation for the projected profits the radio station would have made in the four years it was denied a broadcast licence.

Discrimination exists in T&T

Attorney Anand Ramlogan led a team of lawyers including Kent Samlal, Riad Ramsaran and Cindy Bhagwandeen, which proved the case of discrimination.

Ramlogan said of Justice Boodoosingh’s ruling:

’The right to equality of treatment existed on paper but made no difference to those who felt they were the victims of discrimination by the state. Two cases I did for the Maha Sabha have successfully tested and developed the law of discrimination: The Trinity Cross case and the radio licence case. The judgment of Boodoosingh (like the judgment of Justice Jamadar in the Trinity Cross case) is historic for several reasons. It accepts there is a socio-political history of discrimination against the Indo-Trinidadian community and that discrimination exists in our ’rainbow’ society. This is important because there was hitherto less than three (3) successful cases of discrimination in our legal history! By recognising and accepting that discrimination in fact exists and is alive and well, the judgment legitimises and vindicates the pain and suffering of the Indo community. The judgment is the highest award of damages (compensation) ever made by any court in the Commonwealth Caribbean against the State for discrimination in legal history. It is also the highest award ever made for ’vindicatory damages’ which is essentially a bonus award added on to the compensation to reflect the sense of public outrage and judicial condemnation for the conduct of the state in the hope that it will deter such behaviour in the future. The judgment is a stinging condemnation of political favouritism and the anti Hindu and anti-Indian attitude of the state’.