[2018] CCJ 13 (AJ) determined and that the action was premature as Professor Ventose had failed and/or refused to await a decision from the EBC regarding his application and failed to make a written request for information regarding his registration status. As a result, no decision had been made before Professor Ventose brought his case, though, as seen above in [1], decisions were made on 8 May 2018. [26] Despite the CEO’s purported position that there had been no administrative act or omission before the claim was brought, there is sufficient evidence on record to the contrary. For example, on his visit to the EBC in January 2018, Professor Ventose was advised that his claim to be registered as an elector would be subjected to the longstanding policy that prejudiced Commonwealth citizens. Paragraphs 106 and 107 of the CEO’s submissions in the Court of Appeal are instructive3: “In response to a request from the Respondent, the aforementioned Form 1 Application was provided to the Respondent, filled out and returned by him, prior to him being referred for consultation regarding the processing of the said Application. The Respondent was informed of the existing policy to register as electors, commonwealth citizens who are either citizens of Barbados or who are in possession of a Permanent Resident or Immigrant Status Permit. The Respondent was further advised that his Form 1 Application would be considered in accordance with the relevant Regulations and processes of the EBC. The Respondent queried whether his name would be entered on the Register of Electors for the constituency of Saint James South. He was advised that he would be informed in due course. The Respondent’s Barbados Identification Number was recorded on his Form 1 Application and submitted in accordance with the procedures of the EBC.” [27] We agree with the Chief Justice that the information as to “existing policy” given to Professor Ventose and indicating the futility of his filling in the required application form, is sufficient to illustrate he is a person whose interests were adversely affected by an administrative act. Section 2 of AJA defines an administrative act or omission as meaning “an act or omission of a Minister, public 3 Pp 81 and 82 of CCJ Record.