The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court ruling in favour of Veera Bhajan, who challenged the refusal of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal (EOT) to recognise her appointment as a lay assessor.

In a ruling on February 26, Justices of Appeal Mira Dean-Armorer, Vasheist Kokaram and Malcolm Holdip affirmed the High Court’s ruling, including an award for damages, but overturned the finding on legitimate expectation.

The judgment’s opening line read, “This was a tale of two powerful ladies in public life.”

Bhajan was appointed a lay assessor by the President in March 2021.

However, the tribunal’s chairman, Donna Prowell-Raphael, refused to allow Bhajan to assume her duties, citing a lack of necessary resources to support her position.

Prowell-Raphael also raised an issue with Bhajan’s qualifications.

After months of waiting and failed negotiations, Bhajan initiated judicial review proceedings, arguing that the chairman acted illegally, in bad faith, and in breach of her legitimate expectations.

In a strongly worded judgment on November 23, 2021, Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams ruled in Bhajan’s favour, criticising Prowell-Raphael’s actions as an abuse of power.

Quinlan-Williams ordered that Bhajan be recognised in her position and awarded her damages for her humiliation and embarrassment.

Quinlan-Williams wrote, “There are times when one seeks a reason or a motive to explain the inexplicable…”

She admitted it was a difficult judgment to write, not because of the facts, which she said were easy to find and “resoundingly spoke for themselves,” but because, “At a certain point, as much as I tried to quiet my mind, I kept hearing the words of one sound over and over; they were from General Grant, ‘Pure hate and acting normal. Pure hate and acting normal. Tell them pure hate and acting normal.’”

The judge also suggested the EOT’s chairman “in a quiet time, reflect on whether she is the best fit for the chair of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.”

Quinlan-Williams continued, The claimant is entitled to be seated from the time of her appointment by the president as a lay assessor. Yet the first and second defendants continue their pursuit, viciously at times and with different excuses in their efforts to prevent the claimant from assuming office as a lay assessor. Even when pressed during these proceedings, they persisted.

“There was no regard to the institution of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal and the impact on the institutionalisation of the Tribunal.

“No regard to the mandate of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal to prevent discrimination and to promote equal opportunities for persons of unequal status. No regard as to how it will look to the rest of us that a person who was lawfully appointed by Her Excellency cannot get her just dues from the Equal Opportunity Tribunal and the chair of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.”

Prowell-Raphael appealed the ruling on multiple grounds, including allegations of judicial bias and procedural errors. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, ruling there