A High Court judge has found the chief immigration officer (CIO) in contempt of court for defying an injunction that barred the deportation of two Venezuelan women in 2019.
Justice Nadia Kangaloo made the order on May 23 and ordered the CIO to pay the women’s legal costs.
In the contempt of court application, lawyers representing Julie Stephanie Vivas Abanero and Neyelis Del Valle Hernandez Ugas claimed the Immigration Division, under then-CIO Charmaine Gandhi-Andrews' supervision, proceeded with the deportation despite being informed of the injunction.
Both women fled their country due to ongoing social and economic issues and arrived in Moruga via boat. They were eventually arrested for entering Trinidad and Tobago illegally in November 2018 and were sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to the offence.
After serving their sentences at the Golden Grove Women’s Prison in Arouca, they were transferred to the Immigration Detention Centre in Aripo to await deportation.
They spent several months at the centre before their lawyers filed a judicial review challenging their lengthy detention and deportation.
On November 16, 2019, then-High Court judge Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell granted an injunction ordering that they not be deported pending the determination of their lawsuit.
In the contempt of court application, two of the women’s lawyers, Amit Mahabir and Shirvani Ramkissoon, said they e-mailed Donaldson-Honeywell’s order to Gandhi-Andrews and deputy CIO Craigwell. They also claimed that they spoke to Craigwell on the telephone, but he said he could not assist.
The lawyers even called one of the women’s cell phones while she was on the aircraft and asked her to hand it over to the flight attendant and airline staff, who said she could not do anything as they had no orders to de-board anyone and the matter was “out of their hands,” as only immigration officers can order the removal of passengers from an aircraft.
In the lawsuits, the women’s lawyers argued that while contempt proceedings were rarely granted against government ministers or state officials, a finding against a government department or minister would still be meaningful.
“The very fact of making such a finding would vindicate the requirements of justice. In addition, an order for costs could be made to underline the significance of contempt.
“A purpose of the courts’ powers to make findings of contempt is to ensure that the orders of the court are obeyed,” they submitted.
They also contended that in exceptional situations, the ability of the court to make a finding of contempt was of great importance.
“It would demonstrate that a government department has interfered with the administration of justice.”
They further argued that the claimants had proven their position beyond a reasonable doubt and that the CIO failed to offer evidence to explain why the court’s order was not obeyed.
The women’s lawyers also filed separate claims against the state for conspiracy to injure and misfeasance in public office ove
