The State has suffered a major defeat as the Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal against a High Court ruling that found former Central Bank Governor Jwala Rambarran was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to millions of dollars in compensation.

On February 11, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar ruled Rambarran was unfairly dismissed, upholding a previous High Court decision that his termination breached his constitutional rights.

The 149-page decision, written by Bereaux, said: “In my judgment, the respondent was not treated fairly. He was not told the specific allegations against him nor was he given any real opportunity to respond to the charges.”

Although the judges agreed on the breach of Rambarran’s rights, they did not agree on compensation, reducing some of Justice Devindra Rampersad’s awards. Rambarran's award still amount to approximately $4 million.

According to the Court of Appeal, the Cabinet had a duty to inform Rambarran his termination was being considered and the reasons for it, while also allowing him an opportunity to respond.

The failure to do so, they ruled, rendered the dismissal “unfair, illegal, null, void, and of no effect.”

The judges also found Rambarran’s dismissal violated sections 4(b) and 5(2)(e) of the Constitution, which protect the right to due process and procedural fairness.

“By Minister (Colm) Imbert’s own admissions in cross-examination, he did not inform the respondent that his dismissal was under active consideration.

“The minister also admitted that he did not invite the respondent to take legal advice on the accusation that he (the respondent) was in breach of the law.

“Minister Imbert contended in cross-examination that the complaints against the respondent were in the public domain and so that it was unnecessary for him to point the respondent to the particular complaints received."

But, the judge wrote, “I do not consider that that was sufficient. The matters in the public domain did not signal to the respondent that his dismissal was under active consideration by the Cabinet and was indeed imminent, such as to give him the opportunity to deal with that.

“Urgency or administrative necessity does not excuse the failure to give the respondent an opportunity to be heard in this case.

“The uproar did not precipitate some fiscal emergency which required immediate action in regard to the respondent.”

Bereaux also noted that Imbert said he allowed 14 days to elapse before he met with Rambarran while waiting for legal advice.

As well as being treated unfairly by not being told the specific allegations against him nor given any opportunity to respond, “At minimum, the minister was required to tell the respondent that the Cabinet was considering terminating his appointment and why, while permitting the respondent the opportunity to respond.

“That was the crucial duty of fairness in this case. Anything less rendered the decision to terminate unfair, illegal, null, void and of no effect. That duty was p