Social activist and public-interest advocate, Ravi Balgobin Maharaj, is challenging the refusal to fully disclose details of attorneys paid millions by the Office of the Attorney General in legal fees during the 2024 fiscal year.

Maharaj contends some $158 million was paid to private attorneys based on statements made at a standing finance committee session in Parliament, last year.

Maharaj first asked for disclosure in November 2024. He asked for names and sums paid by the AG's office for 2024 along with invoices.

'It must be understood and remembered that these are public funds and you are accountable to the public,' Maharaj's attorneys said in a pre-action protocol letter.

On January 14, the ministry's permanent secretary responded to the request, refusing full disclosure and providing only the names of 64 attorneys along with heavily redacted invoices. It did not confirm the figure repeated by Maharaj, instead pointing to expenditure of almost $1 billion from 2010 to 2015.

The Attorney General's Office cited reasons for its refusal, including personal safety concerns and potential defamatory remarks against attorneys.

Maharaj's lawyers dismissed these justifications as 'untenable, arbitrary, and irrational.'

Represented by Freedom Law Chambers, led by former AG Anand Ramlogan, SC, Maharaj has demanded unredacted names of attorneys, the specific amounts paid to them, and their invoices. His legal team argues that the public has a right to know how taxpayers' money has been spent, especially given the alarming scale of the expenditure and the prior transparency precedent set by former administrations.

On January 20, attorney Aasha Ramlal stressed that the expenditure of public funds must be open to scrutiny. She also challenged the AG's suggestion that such disclosures could lead to reputational harm, asserting that transparency fosters accountability and public trust.

She said concerns that invoices do not indicate the nature and complexity of matters was an 'obvious shortcoming' on the ministry's part.

'The legal fees are being paid out of public funds and your ministry has a duty to ensure that the fees charged and paid are properly accounted for and justified.'

She said denying access was not the solution, suggesting the AG issue a directive to attorneys for invoices to contain adequate particulars.

'Of equal concern should have been the public's right to know and ensure that they are being given value for money and that the fees paid are reasonable and justified.

'Your concern for the former but not the latter is, therefore, highly questionable.

'What you cannot do, however, is to refuse to account for the expenditure of public funds on the tendentious basis that the invoices you have received and paid are deficient because the attorney did not condescend to adequately particularise the number of hours spent or nature and complexity of each matter.

'If the invoices were deficient, then the simple answer is that you should not have authorised the payment of same until y