Dismissal of Commissioner of Info may not accord with law
The Access to Information Act which empowers Commissioner of Information Charles Ramson Sr does not provide for him to be fired for the offence cited by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo.
According to the Act the President may remove the commissioner only if he is found to be bankrupt, has been convicted of an offence which involves immorality; is unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body or had, or has, acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as Commissioner of Information.
Additionally the Act provides for the Commissioner to make representation on his own behalf before being removed.
There is no indication that any of this is the case instead during the consideration of the Office of the Prime Minister’s estimated expenditure for 2019, Nagamootoo told the Committee of Supply that Ramson was dismissed for rendering his office dysfunctional since he has been unable to submit an account of what he has done since assuming the post in 2013.
According to the Prime Minister the Ministry of the Presidency had sent Ramson a dismissal letter in March of this year and efforts are being made to fill the post with a person who was both neutral and qualified however there is no allocation reflected for this office in the 2019 Budget contributions to Local Organisations.
In January 2017, Ramson had filed a lawsuit against the government seeking just over $5.5 million in unpaid gratuity for December 2016 as well as payment for his use and occupation of his own East Street property for the year in light of the government’s failure to provide suitable accommodation for his office.
The suit noted that Ramson was appointed by then president Donald Ramotar with effect from July 2nd, 2013 as Commissioner of Information under Section 5 of the Access to Information Act 2011 and he assumed office and remained in office to date.
Under Section 5, the statement of claim explained, he entered into a contract of employment with Ramotar in his capacity as the Commissioner of Information, the terms of which include the payment of gratuity at the end of every six months of employment at the rate of 22½ per cent of his gross salary free of income tax. “Payments were to be made to the Plaintiff [Ramson] out of budgetary allocations to the Office of the President,” the statement of claim said.