Dear Editor,
In a comment on my letter which appeared in SN on January 27 (‘The President is not empowered to extend GT&T’s licence’), a blogger with the initials ‘gtt’ wrote that “Gita Ragubhir is the Director of Telecommunications.” I assume that the blogger, whom I do not associate with the telephone company, is referring to Ms Gita Ragubhir, an attorney at law, who headed the telecommunications section or desk in the Office of the Prime Minister from the early 1990s and who, I understand, was transferred to the Office of the President in the same capacity, when the responsibility for telecommunications was assumed by the President. With regard to the reported extension of GT&T’s licence, the appointment of a director is of special interest, since only a director who has been duly appointed under the Telecommunications Act can perform this function.
The Director of Telecommunications is a statutory position created by Parliament under the Telecommunications Act. As far as I know, Ms Ragubhir was not appointed as such in the Prime Minister’s office and there appears to be no published information indicating that she was appointed as such on transfer to the Office of the President. It is important to note that the Telecommunications Act ensures that the appointment of the director cannot be made without the public being notified.
Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act states: “[T]here shall be a Director of Telecommunications, whose Office shall be a public office.” It is interesting to note that the act makes no direct or overt provision for an appointment to the post and for the conditions of appointment. This is unlike the PUC Act which, in similar fashion, states in section 5, that “[T]here is hereby established a Commission to be known as the Public Utilities Commission…” and makes specific provisions for the responsible minister to appoint the members of the commission, including the chairman. The PUC Act also lays down the basic conditions that should govern the appointments. However, section 61 of the Telecommunications Act gives the minister power to make regulations in a number of specific areas as well as in “any other matter that is required to be, or may be, prescribed under any provision of this Act.” It is assumed, therefore, that the minister may proceed under this “any other” clause to appoint a director and set the conditions of appointment. However, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no regulation has ever been made since the enactment of the act twenty years ago, which points to a serious neglect of regulatory responsibilities. But I do not rule out the possibility that I may have missed something.
Assuming that Ms Gita Ragubhir holds the statutory appointment of Director of Telecommunications in the President’s office, I would be most surprised if, an attorney of her experience, punctiliousness and unquestionable ability (yes, I know her and have dealt with her in the office of the Prime Minister) would choose to ignore her statutory responsibility and the procedural requirements of the Telecommunications Act and issue a letter amending GT&T’s licence. It may be the case that, following instructions, she may have issued the letter, as a non-statutory official tasked with the responsibility for telecommunications, or that the letter was issued by some other official. This I can understand, but it would not comply with the Telecommunications Act and would leave GT&T fully exposed as an unlicensed operator.
A basic feature of the Telecommunications Act is regulatory transparency. This is especially so with respect to the granting or modification of licences. Generally speaking, with rare exceptions, the act requires that the minister and the Director of Telecommunications shall give public notice of any action they propose to take, pursuant to the act, giving interested parties ample opportunity to offer comments or objections. Editor, in the context of this mandate of transparency, I respectfully suggest that you forward this letter to the President, in his assumed capacity of minister responsible for telecommunications, requesting the release of two documents that are central to the issue of the extension of GT&T’s licence: (a) the instrument appointing Ms Gita Ragubhir (or any other official) as Director of Telecommunications under the Telecommunications Act and (b) the letter or other document modifying and extending GT&T’s licence.
I assume that the President should have no objections to the release of these documents for the information of the public.
Yours faithfully,
Joseph A Tyndall
Former PUC Chairman
