AG on covid19 ordinance ruling: Judgment is victory for Govt

Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi said he is not concerned about a recent ruling by a High Court Judge which states that making a breach of the guidelines for places of worship a criminal offence is unlawful. He said there were alternative treatments he could pursue.

The judgment was handed down by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh on Friday as part of his ruling on two constitutional claims that challenged the validity of the coronavirus public health regulations. He ruled on two separate claims, one brought by Pundit Satyanand Maharaj and another by five men who were arrested at Alicia’s Guest House in St Ann’s at an alleged covid19 party on April 9 and later charged with breaching the regulations. These were the first cases to test the covid19 regulations.

Boodoosingh said the regulations made by the minister fell within the scope of what was permitted under the public health ordinance. However, he said making the breach of the health ministry guidelines a criminal offence is outside of the ambit of the powers given to the minister under the ordinance.

Contacted for comment, Al-Rawi said he was awaiting the advice of his legal team to decide whether he should appeal that part of the judgment, and said he could be "prescriptive" with respect to the regulations.

“I can build into the body of the regulations certain aspects I wish to treat with and then select, out of them, certain points. You have to remember that that judgment came in relation to previous regulations. So those regulations, we have moved past as to some of the matters, we’re now on Regulation 27.

"So the judge’s observation doesn’t necessarily cause me too much concern because we’re now at a stage where the experts can advise as to what aspects they wish to put into the regulations, as opposed to the guidelines, and then the regulations, the aspects that go there, I can treat with criminal offences and the guidelines I can treat with other arrangements.”

In a release, the AG said the court agreed with him that the regulations have been and continue to be properly made under the Public Health Ordinance, which is a constitutionally saved law, and expressly endorsed the fact that the decisions made by the State have been taken on the basis of scientific expertise. He said “the Court was of the view that the Guidelines did not infringe on the constitutional right to freedom of religion, and that the practice of religion must at this time adapt to societal needs.”

Al-Rawi said he would definitely be appealing the award of costs made by the judge.

“The judge made two partial awards, he gave 50 per cent costs, and we believe that is definitely in need of appeal because in the Alicia’s Guest House matter, that was a complete and total loss for the other side, so we’re definitely going to appeal the cost aspects and I’m confident about our success on appeal. I think the judge was rather Solomonic in his decision.”

The Attorney General said the judgement was a major victory for the government, as it upheld the constitutionality of the government’s approach to the regulations.

“What is ultimately the gravity of that judgement is that it rubbishes the UNC’s approach. If you look at what Dinesh Rambally, Wade Mark, Saddam Hosein, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, what they’ve all said on the Parliamentary record repeatedly is that the government should bring the regulations to the Parliament and that the Parliament should be the place to make those regulations. They, through their attorneys, challenged the constitutionality of the regulations and the judge’s decision today, upholds not only the propriety of the approach that we took, to use these regulations and do them without Parliamentary reference, but he upheld the constitutionality of the regulations, he upheld the fact that this is the way you create law in the most nimble fashion to meet a pandemic, so everything that I have been saying as AG in answer to the Opposition, has been confirmed.”