LAST year, Commissioner of Information, retired Judge Charles Ramson Snr, was dismissed from his office, as Prime Minister (PM) Moses Nagamootoo said his office was rendered dysfunctional.

Ramson’s appointment to the post was confirmed in 2013 by then President Donald Ramotar, but PM said that during the consideration of the 2019 national budget estimates, Ramson did not submit any information regarding his mandate, and as such, his post was terminated on March 8, 2018.

“He has rendered no report, has provided no account for what he has done,” Nagamootoo said, noting that he was paid salaries and benefits in excess of $22 million for 2018.
Ramson, however, subsequently filed an application at the High Court after his termination, seeking to have the court find that the State was in violation of his fundamental right as catered for under article 144 of Guyana’s Constitution.

In addition, the application also stated that when the coalition government assumed office in 2015, Ramson was deprived of the appropriate accommodation, staff, machinery, and equipment under the terms and conditions he enjoyed prior the coalition government assuming office.

The matter came up in the chambers of acting Chief Justice, Roxane George-Wiltshire on Thursday morning and ruling was granted in favour of Charles Ramson for the benefits he was denied.

The Court, relying on his evidence, found that the State was in breach of Ramson’s constitutional right to work by not providing him with the appropriate accommodation, staff, and equipment.

As such, an order was given that the Government of Guyana provide him with accommodation, staffing and equipment for the purpose of the efficient functioning of the office until such time when his service is lawfully terminated.

The court order seen by this publication, said “having reviewed the evidence it is hereby ordered that the Government of Guyana is to provide such furniture and staff as feasible within the budget of the Government of Guyana, up to the termination of employment of the claimant when said termination is finally determined by the parties or by a court of law.”

The document also stated issues regarding the termination of the employment of the claimant, whether lawful, constitutional or not; will not be dealt with in these proceedings. Hence, both Notices of Application were refused.