By Sue-Ann Wayow
THE data collection exercise for the implementation of property tax in 2017 was illegal and breached citizens’ constitutional rights.
This was the ruling made by the Court of Appeal on Friday.
In a written judgement, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, Charmaine Pemberton and Vasheist Kokaram reversed the decision of High Court Judge Jacqueline Wilson who dismissed activist Devant Maharaj’s lawsuit on the issue in 2018.
Justice Rajkumar wrote the substantive judgement, ruling that the Commissioner of Valuations had no legal authority under Section 6 of the Valuation of Land Act to require Maharaj and other property owners to submit a valuation return form on or before June 10, 2017 and that property owners were under no corresponding obligation to do so.
“Because the Commissioner reversed course at the first opportunity and the evidence suggests inadvertence rather than highhanded conduct or intent to breach statute or the Constitution, declarations of breaches will therefore suffice,” Rajkumar said.
Rajkumar emphasised said that the judgement did not extend to the Government’s current data collection exercise which is being done under a different statutory regime. The current deadline for submission under the new policy is January 31.
“Nothing herein is intended to be construed as affecting that exercise which is not before this court on this appeal,” Rajkumar said.
Although the forms then cannot be now used, some affected individuals may want to leave their data in the system for use under the current policy he said.
Rajkumar said, “Some persons may be content to have their information remain with the Commissioner even though they provided it on the basis that it was mandatory that they do so rather than go through the entire exercise at such future time if required.”
The appeal court also ruled that previous policy breached Maharaj’s constitutional rights to protection of the law and respect for his private life.
Justice Kokaram said, “The unlawful demand for this private information robs the interaction between the individual and the State of its legitimacy.
“An illegitimate power to make the request places the demand in the sphere of exclusion. There could therefore be no legitimate greater good in making the unlawful request. In this public situation, the private interest to be left alone does not give way to the government interest in intrusion into the individual’s privacy as it is not a legitimate advancement of the public interest. The intrusion ever so slightly still amounts to a constitutional breach.”
Maharaj, former Government minister under the People’s Partnership administration, issued a statement on the judgement.
He said, “This judgment is a victory for all property owners and the public at large. I trust that it will encourage other civic-minded citizens to challenge the unlawful action and conduct of the State where the Constitution is being violated by those who hold high public office. Public interest litigation is not something that should be discouraged because it is vital to democracy and the preservation of the rule of law.”
“It is unfortunate that it has taken five years for this matter to be resolved but I am satisfied that I was given a fair hearing and that the Judiciary continues to be independent and fearless.”
