‘Stay at home’ challenged

Social activist Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj is challenging the police’s authority to make people stay at home. Balgobin-Maharaj’s attorneys have sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Solicitor General signalling his intent to file a constitutional claim against the State.

He is represented by attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, Renuka Rambhajan, and Douglas Bayley. Balgobin-Maharaj’s threat of legal action comes after he said police stopped him three times and ordered him to return home.

The first time, on April 7, he said he was leaving his rented apartment in Palmiste to drop lunch for a friend. The second time he was stopped at a roadblock in Chaguanas while going to visit his girlfriend. Balgobin-Maharaj was told that was not an essential activity and sent back home. The third time, he said he was going for gas and to the ATM.

He claims his driver’s permit carries his home address in Curepe, but each time he was sent back to his apartment in Palmiste. In the letter, Bayley said Balgobin-Maharaj was concerned that the police, without proper legal mechanisms, are carrying out actions which go against the freedom-of-movement provisions of the Constitution, and above the powers given to them under the Police Service Act.

The letter accuses police of overstepping their lawful function by questioning people and having them give proof they are legitimately outside. Bayley referenced newspaper reports on roadblocks over the last few days and statements by Police Commissioner Gary Griffith and other police officers on enforcing government’s stay-at-home orders.

The letter said it was clear the police were under the misconception that they had the power to demand that citizens explain why they are outside and that they could determine whether an explanation is acceptable or not. Bayley said police cannot enforce government policies and guidelines, but the law, and can use moral suasion but cannot exercise authority to arrest someone unless the alleged offending conduct fell within the remit of statutorily defined offences.

He also pointed out there were no state of emergency or curfew restrictions or laws that prevented anyone from leaving their homes or allowed them to be questioned for being outside. The letter added that the closure of non-essential businesses did not equate to law and accused police of trying to enforce a guideline that had no legal basis or force.

“People’s fundamental rights cannot be suspended in times of national crisis,” the letter said. The State has asked to be given until Wednesday to respond to the letter. In a statement on Tuesday, Griffith knocked those who were against the roadblocks, saying the police were not causing a problem but using a tool to save lives.