The Police Complaints Authority's (PCA) director and deputy director have been permitted to amend their judicial review claim against the Salaries Review Commission's (SRC) recommendations on their salaries to add the Cabinet as an interested party.

PCA director David West and Michelle Solomon-Baksh, deputy director, allege the Cabinet acted unlawfully when it revised their salaries based on the SRC’s 120th Report to the President, dated October 24, 2024. They argue the report violated the principles of natural justice and that they were denied the opportunity to be heard before the recommendations.

Their amended application seeks to quash the Cabinet’s decision, contained in Minister of Finance Circular No. 11 of 2024, dated December 23, 2024, and bar any further changes to their terms based on the SRC report.

The Cabinet was served with the application on Monday.

Justice Frank Seepersad is presiding over the challenge, and the SRC’s attorney, Jason Mootoo, SC, at a hearing on May 6, said the commission was not objecting to the amendment.

In response to queries by the judge, Douglas Mendes, SC, who represents the two directors, said the two were being paid the same salaries as before, and the revision, recommended by the SRC, will go into effect for future appointees to the post of director and deputy director.

“From what we understand, the incumbent would be paid what they are being paid now, but future appointees would be paid what the SRC recommends.”

West was reappointed PCA director for a third consecutive term on December 13, 2024, for five years, while Solomon-Baksh was reappointed for a five-year term as deputy director in July 2022.

Seepersad noted that since there was no immediate danger of new appointments whose remuneration was now being challenged, he would grant the application for the amendment, so their claim could be filed by May 12.

He also permitted the SRC to file its affidavits in response by June, and the Cabinet will also have an opportunity to do so before the next hearing on June 10.

According to the filing, the SRC’s 120th report was laid before the House of Representatives without debate. Although a motion to approve the report was listed for January 13, 2025, it was never debated. The application notes that while the Cabinet has final authority over salaries, it can only act on SRC recommendations, and those recommendations must be fair and lawful.

West and Solomon-Baksh say they filed their claim in February after seeing the report listed for parliamentary approval. Only afterwards did they receive the finance minister’s circular confirming the Cabinet’s acceptance of the SRC’s recommendations.

West said he contacted then attorney general Reginald Armour, SC, seeking Cabinet reconsideration, but the AG declined to forward the request.

“Further, even if the challenged recommendations are set aside, the decisions of the Cabinet may not be set aside without an order of the High Court,” the application states.

West said it was the listing of the motion in the