Privy Council rules on “independence” requirement for Chair of Trinidad and Tobago National Insurance Board

04/02/26

In January 2022, the Minister of Finance appointed Patrick Ferreira as the Chairman of the National Insurance Board of Trinidad and Tobago. Under s 3(2)(d) of the National Insurance Act 1971, the Chairman must be “a person, who in the opinion of the Minister, is independent of Government, Business and Labour”.

Mr Maharaj challenged Mr Ferreira’s appointment by way of judicial review. He relied on Mr Ferreira’s history as a Government-nominated director of the Board and status as an established businessman. The High Court granted Mr Maharaj permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed his claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.

Mr Maharaj appealed to the Privy Council. Although the appeal had become academic because Mr Ferreira had resigned, the Board exercised its discretion to decide the correct interpretation of s 3(2)(d) because of its continuing public importance.

By majority, the Board dismissed the appeal. Lord Burrows (with whom Lord Hodge and Lord Briggs agreed) concluded that the correct interpretation of “independent” required that the candidate not be under the control or influence of the Government, Business, or Labour. It required the candidate to be able to “rise above the fray”. That is, “independent” focused on the personal quality of the candidate as being someone who is independent-minded.

Lady Rose and Lord Richards dissented. They said that “independent” required that the candidate not be significantly connected to, associated with, or involved in, the Government, Business, or Labour. The function of an “independent” Chairman was both to improve the quality of decision-making by the National Insurance Board and to promote public confidence in that decision-making. Section 3(2)(d) sought to achieve this by requiring the Minister to be satisfied that the Chairman was a person who was able, and who was seen by the public to be able, to hold the ring between the nominees of the three interest groups and to bring a disinterested viewpoint to the role of Chairman.

The judgment can be read here.