00:00Privy Council rules the TTRA Act is not unconstitutional.
00:04That means the state has been given the green light to fully implement the Act passed in 2021.
00:12It's celebration in government quarters evident by the ex-post by Finance Minister Kom Imbert
00:18who announced the Privy Council's decision to dismiss the appeal brought by Customs Officer
00:23Theresa Dorey who challenged the implementation of the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority Act
00:30as unconstitutional. Imbert posted, quote, we won the case. This required tremendous effort
00:37against the relentless opposition from the UNC and the PSA. Now we can modernize revenue collection
00:45end quote. The TTRA Act passed and proclaimed in 2021 created a new semi-autonomous corporate body,
00:54the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority, responsible for the assessment and collection
01:00of tax which has to date been performed by the Inland Revenue Division and the Customs and
01:06Excise Division of the Ministry of Finance. Public officers currently employed in those
01:12divisions have certain protections. They are insulated from improper political pressure
01:17and interference by having the Public Service Commission which is empowered to promote,
01:23remove and exercise disciplinary control over them. But under the TTRA Act, members of the
01:30Board are appointed and may be removed by the Minister. The same applies for the Director
01:36General and Deputy Directors General. However, when it comes to the Enforcement Division,
01:42the Deputy Director General of Enforcement and certain officers of his division are appointed,
01:48removed and disciplined by the Public Service Commission. All other employees of the authority
01:55are appointed, removed by and subject to the disciplinary control of the Board.
02:01In response to the suggestion that employees carrying out co-government functions ought not
02:06be hired, dismissed and disciplined by the Minister, the Privy Council notes the difficulty
02:12for the parties and even the Court to define an undefined and very likely undefinable concept
02:20of co-government functions. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council says there is nothing in the
02:26Constitution that expressly requires co-government functions to be only performed or delivered by
02:32public servants. The Committee noted also the problem with defining the term
02:38enforcement. It says the scope of powers reserved to public officers of the Enforcement Division
02:44is not as carefully or clearly defined by the Act as might be desirable and the definition
02:51of enforcement is circular. It says, although this is a controversy of some potential importance,
02:59it is unnecessary to resolve it on this appeal. There might be more targeted challenges to the
03:05proper interpretation of enforcement and the extent to which the intended division of functions
03:12is achieved by the Act, but these are not for determination on this appeal.
03:18But when it came to the substantive matter at hand, the Privy Council was satisfied
03:23that there are necessary and effective safeguards to protect the staff
03:28and officers of the authority and members of the public from executive interference.
03:34The Privy Council says the Enforcement Division has a preserved security of tenure,
03:39remaining under the control and direction of the Public Service Commission. There are safeguards,
03:46to prevent either the Board or the Minister from playing any part in the day-to-day operations of
03:51the authority. The Board is prohibited from giving directions to the Director General or any employee
03:57of the authority regarding revenue functions. It is prohibited from accessing any information
04:03about individuals or entities or documents concerning legal actions. The Minister may
04:11give general policy directions to the Board. Employees have protections that give them
04:17security of employment and insulate them from improper interference from the Executive.
04:23All other staff of the authority enjoy all the rights of employees in the private sector.
04:30In the Act, public officers are given three options.
04:331. To transfer to the authority on terms and conditions no less favourable
04:39than presently enjoyed. 2. To retire from the public service on terms to be agreed or to remain
04:45in the public service in a different role.
05:09The fight is not over. That's the response of PSA President Leroy Batiste,
05:18who promises more litigation if government continues to fail the public officers impacted
05:23by the full implementation of the TTRA Act. Batiste tells TV6, testing the constitutionality
05:30of the Act was just one step in their game plan. He refers to the three options offered to officers
05:37to transfer to the authority on terms and conditions no less favourable than presently
05:42enjoyed, to retire from the public service on terms to be agreed or to remain in the public
05:48service in a different role. But he laments workers were never told what the separation
05:53plan entails. Batiste declares that the matter at the heart of their plight remains
05:59government's blatant disregard for workers' rights. He sells the PSA route to the CPO in 2022 for
06:06clarity on the separation plan and never got a response. Batiste says, the Privy Council's ruling
06:13in no way sanitised the atrocity committed against workers. Workers were being forced to make
06:19decisions in the dark without information. With an estimated 40% of workers indicating an interest
06:27in taking any one of the three options, the PSA President called on the state to desist from
06:32bullying tactics and meet with them on these critical issues. If not, the union will have no
Comments