The Judicial Review (Amendment) Bill 2005 was introduced by the Government in Parliament in
2005 with the express aim of limiting the categories of persons who might apply for judicial
review by repealing Section 5(2)(b) of the JR Act73, which vests jurisdiction in the Court to deal
with public interest litigation. Due to the delaying of Parliament in September 2005, the Bill
effectively lapsed. However, during the time between the implementing of the Bill in Parliament
and when it lapsed, a challenge was launched by an NGO attacking the decision of the
Government to remove public interest litigation. It was embodied in the case of Trinidad and
Tobago Civil Rights Association v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,74 The NGO won
their challenge, but the decision of Justice Gobin was reversed at the level of the Court of Appeal
in the case of the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Trinidad and Tobago Civil
Rights Association,75 The decision of the Court of Appeal suggested that the Court seemed
inclined to adopt the position that while the Bill may have the effect of limiting the statutory
right to public interest litigation. This right existed independent of the Bill in the judicial practice
of Trinidad and Tobago.
Conclusion
Trinidad and Tobago is at a junction between a high level of economic expansion through
international trade and the slowly emerging environmental protection mechanisms. These
mechanisms are in increasing demand out of public necessity and desire for sustainability and
environmental democracy as a means to guard against potential resultant dangers from these trade
agreements with MNCs. The establishment of the EMA was derived through this need, and is
instrumental in promoting public awareness and participation in factors that affect the environment.
It appears that the EMA, however, is following its directives in a manner that suggests a restrained
and minimalist approach to promoting public participation. What is noted is that the State is
feasibly the stimulus behind such an approach, and the EMA’s existence as a State body may
directly counter the economic relationships the government seeks to establish with companies such
as bpTT, ALNG and Alutrint.
The State’s fundamental control of both economic and environmental bodies presents a
73
The Judicial Review
HCA No.1070 of 2005.
75
C.A.Civ. 149/2005.
74
Act, No. 60 of 2000
52