News
Jada Loutoo
A High Court judge has ruled that the Coast Guard acted unlawfully by failing for more than a year to decide on a senior officer’s complaint about his non-promotion, and has ordered that a decision be made within seven days.
In a judgment delivered on January 28, Justice Margaret Mohammed granted declarations in favour of former Coast Guard member O’Brian Lightbourne, who sought judicial review over the failure to determine his grievance before he left the service.
Lightbourne served in the TTCG from 1996 until January 26, 2024, his compulsory run-out date. At the time of his retirement, he was the most senior officer in the Intelligence Operations Department of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force Intelligence Unit (DFIU).
He complained that despite his seniority and experience, he was not promoted to the rank of Fleet Chief Petty Officer (FCPO) after a vacancy arose in October 2022 following the retirement of another officer. Lightbourne contended that a Cabinet Minute provided for two FCPO positions within the DFIU and that he had a legitimate expectation of promotion based on his seniority and competence.
According to the evidence, Lightbourne lodged a formal request in December 2022 seeking redress for his non-promotion. Over the following months, the matter was discussed within the chain of command, seniority reports were prepared, and meetings were held with senior officers. However, no decision was ever communicated to him before he demitted office.
Lightbourne argued that the failure to decide his complaint breached section 195 of the Defence Act and resulted in him retiring at a lower rank, affecting his terminal benefits and denying him the prestige of reaching the highest enlisted rank within his unit.
The defendants — the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard and the Chief of Defence Staff — accepted that multiple requests were made but maintained that promotion was discretionary, not automatic, and dependent on available billets. They also argued that there was no statutory timeframe within which a decision had to be made.
Justice Mohammed rejected those submissions. She found that once Lightbourne invoked the redress procedure under section 195 of the Defence Act, the Commanding Officer had a statutory duty to investigate the complaint and provide a decision.
The judge held that the explanation advanced for the delay, including claims that necessary documents had not been provided, was misleading, noting that the relevant Cabinet Minute was already known within the Defence Force.
She further ruled that a delay of approximately 13 months, particularly when Lightbourne was approaching his compulsory retirement date, was unreasonable. The issue to be decided, she said, was not complex and could have been resolved once the seniority report and Cabinet Minute were available by November 2023.
In granting relief, the court declared that Lightbourne was entitled to a decision on his complaint, that the delay was unreasonable, and that the continuing failure to decide was unlawful and ultra vires. The Commanding Officer was ordered to make a decision on the complaint within seven days, and the defendants were ordered to pay Lightbourne’s costs.
Lightbourne was represented by Arden Williams, instructed by attorneys Mariah Ramrattan and Don-Marie Adolphe. The defendants were represented by Rachel Theophilius and Raquel Le Blanc, instructed by attorneys Abigail Bristo and Justay Guerra.
