Ravi Balgobin Maharaj v The Minister of Finance (Trinidad and Tobago)

The statutory requirement that a chair be independent of Government, Business and Labour concerns freedom from their control or influence and the personal quality of being independent-minded. It does not automatically exclude a candidate because of significant past or present connections with those sectors. The Minister must form an evaluative opinion, supported by objective grounds, that the candidate is independent in that sense. The statutory context, including the NIB’s sectoral composition and the parallel provision for appeals tribunal chairs, supports that construction. An interpretation that reduced the field of suitable candidates almost to vanishing point would produce an absurd consequence.

The appellant, a Trinidad and Tobago social-media journalist and blogger, challenged the Minister of Finance’s appointment of Patrick Ferreira as Chair of the National Insurance Board. Jacqueline Wilson J dismissed the rolled-up judicial review on 19 December 2022 in Claim No CV 2022-01181, holding that the Minister had correctly interpreted section 3(2)(d) of the National Insurance Act Chapter 32:01. The Court of Appeal, comprising Bereaux JA, Rajkumar JA and Wilson JA, upheld that decision on 15 September 2023 in Civil Appeal No P007 of 2023. Ferreira later resigned and the Minister withdrew opposition, but the Board heard the appeal because the statutory issue was of general public importance. The central question was whether independence required absence of significant connections or freedom from control or influence.

Lord Burrows delivered the majority judgment, with Lord Hodge and Lord Briggs agreeing. The appeal was dismissed.

1. The Board retained the appeal despite its becoming academic because the correct construction of section 3(2)(d) of the National Insurance Act Chapter 32:01 raised an issue of general public importance. Applying the approach in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Salem [1999] 1 AC 450, as applied in Special Tribunal v Estate Police Association [2024] UKPC 13, there was good reason in the public interest to hear it.
2. Statutory language must be interpreted in its context and in light of the provision’s purpose. Section 3(2)(d) requires the Minister to form the opinion that the proposed Chair is not under the control or influence of Government, Business or Labour. It concerns the candidate’s personal quality of being independent-minded, or able to rise above the fray, rather than the absence of significant connections.
3. Strong connections with one of the sectors do not automatically make a candidate ineligible. They may make it harder to establish objective grounds for the Minister’s opinion, but the Minister may appoint a person with such connections if rational and objectively justified criteria support the conclusion that the person is independent-minded.
4. The statutory structure, section 9, and the equivalent wording in section 60(1)(a) supported that interpretation. The Board also applied the principle that interpretations producing absurd consequences should be avoided, and the presumption that the same words in the same statute bear the same meaning. For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 was used in support.
5. The Minister’s affidavit showed that he considered Mr Ferreira’s directorships, business interests, track record and personal attributes. He was entitled to conclude that Mr Ferreira would not be controlled or influenced by Government or Business. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
6. Lady Rose and Lord Richards dissented on the statutory interpretation. They considered that section 3(2)(d) required no significant connection with the three sectors, as an additional requirement to independent-mindedness, and that a person with significant connections was ineligible regardless of the Minister’s view. They did not express a final view on the disposition in light of the changed circumstances.

• Privy Council: Appeal dismissed by majority under [2026] UKPC 4.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: Bereaux JA, with Rajkumar JA and Wilson JA agreeing, upheld the first-instance decision on 15 September 2023 in Civil Appeal No P007 of 2023.
• High Court: Jacqueline Wilson J dismissed the rolled-up judicial review on 19 December 2022 in Claim No CV 2022-01181.