THE High Court has ruled that Devant Maharaj is not a journalist.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Kevin Ramcharan refused to grant Maharaj judicial review against the decision of Communications Minister Donna Cox not to allow him to be part of the virtual media conferences (VMCs) of the Ministry of Health to update the country on Covid-19.
The judge said, “In the instant case the Claimant (Maharaj) has applied for leave to apply for judicial review with respect to a decision (or lack thereof) to include him at the VMCs.
“His claim was premised on the fact that he, at the time of the application to be included was a journalist.
“However, on the evidence that was presented to the court in the application for leave the Claimant failed to establish that he could be considered as a journalist.
“In the circumstances, the Claimant has not satisfied the threshold test that the he has an arguable ground for judicial review with a reasonable prospect of success.”
Maharaj had claimed that he was a journalist and just like blogger Rhoda Bharath should have been included in the VMCs.
During the hearing, Maharaj’s attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, criticised AZPNews and Wired868 as being non-traditional media houses who should not have been allowed to the VMC.
However, Justice Ramcharan found that AZPNews is a bona fide news organisation.
He said, “In his submissions, the Claimant proffered a definition of politician, and suggested that the Claimant could not fall within any of those categories any more than Ms Bharath could. It was noted by the Defendants that the Claimant himself recognized Ms Bharath as a journalist as he did Mr Prior Beharry and Mr Lasana Liburd. He could not now say that she was not a journalist.
“The Claimant did not strenuously contend that he was similarly circumstanced to Mr Beharry or Mr Liburd sufficiently to be considered suitable comparators to them.
“His main focus was on Ms Bharath. It is interesting to note that in his affidavit, he noted that all three have Facebook pages through which they disseminate their news: AZPNews (Mr Beharry), Wired868 (Mr Liburd) and Newsauce (Ms Bharath).
“He claimed to have a news outlet of his own, but as noted earlier there is absolutely no evidence of that being in existence. Interestingly as well, although he mentioned these pages, he did not exhibit copies of them to his affidavit, other than that of Ms Bharath.
“He did however, exhibit an article published by Mr Beharry on the AZP News website, (and not Facebook page), which shows that there is substance behind AZP News, whether run by one man or 20.”
Justice Ramcharan also made reference to the affidavit of head of Corporate Communications in the Ministry of Health Candice Alcantara.
He said, “Ms Alcantara in her affidavit gave uncontradicted evidence that Mr Liburd runs an online news website. Further on Ms Bharath’s page, there is a link to a website, again suggestive that there is substance to this alter ego. Given the relative lack of evidence with respect to Wired868 and AZP News, there is nothing to suggest that these are not bona fide news organisations.
“In his submissions reference was made to Mr Errol Fabien who the Claimant has described as an active politician who ran for the St Joseph seat, and who is critical of the PNM and the UNC.
“Further, Mr Fabien intends to run again for political office. While it is a matter of public record that Mr Fabien ran for political office previously, there is no evidence before the court that Mr Fabien is a frequent critic of both political parties, which in any event does not make one a politician. There is also absolutely no evidence put before the court that Mr Fabien intends to run for public office in the future. This is again an assertion by the Claimant without the evidential backing to support it.
“The Claimant also resisted the suggestion by the court that Mr Fabien was present at the VMC as a representative of AZP News. This led to back and forth between the Claimant and the Defendants as to whether the email from AZP News asking for Mr Fabien to be joined was disclosable. At the end of the day, the Claimant opted not to make any application for specific disclosure, but the Defendants did in any event chose to disclose the emails to the Court.
“The emails themselves are unremarkable. One asks for Mr Fabien to be given access to the AZP News on the 14th April on behalf of AZP News. The second asks for Mr Fabien to be given access on behalf of AZP News and Gayelle the Channel. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Fabien has been allowed access to the VMC whether on behalf of AZP News, or otherwise.
“It is also to be noted that the Claimant does not suggest that either Mr Liburd or Mr Beharry are politically active. In those circumstances, it is clear that neither of them could be proper comparators to the Claimant. Mr Fabien was granted access on behalf of AZP News, a bona fide news organization. Therefore, he clearly is also not a proper comparator.”
Maharaj has signalled his intention to appeal the judgement.
Cox and the Attorney General were presented by Reginald Armour, SC, Vanessa Gopaul, Rishi Dass instructed by Ms Savitri Maharaj, Ms Tenille Ramkissoon and Ms Andella Ramroop.
Maharaj was represented by Ramlogan, Renuka Rambhajan, Jared Jagroo instructed by Douglas Bayley.
See judgment below:
Devant Maharaj v Min of Communications & Anor (1)
