The Attorney General’s Chambers has told the Ombudsman that her ruling ordering the Commissions Secretariat to process a Freedom of Information request for records of Chief Justice Margaret Ramsay-Hale’s appointment is unlawful, and that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) will seek judicial review unless it is withdrawn.

The letter before action, dated 29 September 2026 and sent under the court’s pre-action protocol for judicial review, gave the Ombudsman seven calendar days to reply, a period that ended on 6 October. The Caymanian Journal (TCJ) has reviewed both the letter and the ruling it challenges.

The request was made to the Governor’s Office on 17 January 2026 by Bilika Simamba, a retired attorney. It sought the JLSC’s recommendation to the Governor for the appointment, any referral back for reconsideration, any recommendation that the post be re-advertised, any recommendation by the former Chief Justice on the appointment, and the letter of appointment itself.

The Governor’s Office released the instrument of appointment on 17 February, said it held no records of any recommendation by the former Chief Justice, and transferred the rest to the Commissions Secretariat, the civil service office that supports the JLSC and five other commissions. On 17 April the Secretariat, on the JLSC’s instructions, refused it on the ground that the JLSC is a constitutional body outside the Act’s definition of a public authority and that any records were held solely on the JLSC’s behalf. Simamba appealed on 22 April.

What the Ombudsman Decided

The decision in Hearing 110-202600292, dated 15 September and signed by Acting Ombudsman Daiana Sipos, agreed with the JLSC on the first point. The Commission is “not a ministry, portfolio, or department; it is not a statutory authority or government company,” and no Cabinet Order has brought it within the Act, the decision says, so the JLSC itself is not a public authority.

It parted from the JLSC on the second. “The fact that a record is described as a ‘JLSC record’ is not determinative,” the decision says. Records relating to the appointment “where they are held, administered, controlled, or accessible through a public authority” fall within the Act, and the Secretariat, which “receives, manages and stores records generated in support of the Commission’s functions,” must process the request and apply any exemptions. The decision rejected the JLSC’s argument that this would breach section 105(6) of the Constitution, which provides that the Commission and its members “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” A requirement to consider whether records are disclosable “does not equate to directing or controlling the Commission in the exercise of its constitutional responsibilities,” the Ombudsman found. The JLSC’s alternative case, that the records would in any event be exempt under sections 20 and 23 of the Act, was recorded but not decided.

The Chambers’ Case

The Chambers’ letter accepts the finding that the JLSC is not a public authority and attacks the rest. Its first ground is fairness: the status of the Secretariat “was not one of the issues identified to the JLSC as being determined by the Ombudsman” in the notice of hearing of 2 July. Its second is law. The Secretariat, the letter says, was established in 2010 under the Office of the Deputy Governor “by executive arrangements” rather than by legislation, so it is not a public authority, and it holds JLSC records only as the Commission’s agent. Applying the Act to those records would put the JLSC under the Ombudsman’s “direction and control” contrary to section 105(6), the letter argues, and “if those points are wrong, then the FOI Act is unconstitutional.”

The letter asks the Ombudsman to withdraw the decision, to confirm that JLSC records held by the Secretariat are outside the Act, and to treat the statutory period for processing the request as not running until the dispute is resolved. It cites section 47 of the Act, which it says allows 45 calendar days from a decision to apply to the Grand Court for leave, and it names Simamba as an interested party in the proposed proceedings. The Secretariat’s own information manager had accepted in May that it “is subject to the FOI Act in its own capacity as a civil service entity”; the Chambers’ letter says that “in fact” the Act does not apply to the Secretariat, which complies voluntarily.

The Appointment

Under the Constitution the Chief Justice is appointed by the Governor “in accordance with the advice of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.” Ramsay-Hale’s appointment was announced by Governor Martyn Roper on 21 September 2022 and took effect on 26 October 2022, succeeding Sir Anthony Smellie. Roper said at the time that the JLSC “recently undertook a formal recruitment exercise for the post of chief justice, at the end of which Ramsay-Hale was selected.” She has sat on the Commission as Chief Justice since 25 October 2022.

Attorney General Samuel Bulgin, whose Chambers signed the letter, announced on 4 September that he will retire in August 2027. Whether the challenge is filed, and whether the Secretariat processes the request in the meantime, now rests on a reply the Ombudsman was asked to give by 6 October. The decision had not been published on her Office’s website by that date.