Pirogue to the Privy Council?

THE COURT of Appeal on Tuesday ruled the State cannot deport an 11-year-old Venezuelan while her status is pending in court.

In response, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi said he was untroubled by this procedural ruling. However, he also signalled a willingness to let the question of the child’s legal status go all the way to London.

“This is a matter which I would obviously expect to go ultimately to the Privy Council,” Mr Al-Rawi told a television station.

It should not go that far.

Notwithstanding that the judicial committee of the Privy Council remains this country’s highest court, the AG should let the Court of Appeal have the final say when the time comes.

The Government has framed its enforcement of border rules as a matter of law and order. But the matter of Venezuelans who arrive here is really a foreign-policy issue.

To wit: Cabinet has said it is enforcing the law, in part, to discourage a flood tide of Venezuelans and to be consistent with how locals are treated. This makes plain it is not just the rule of law at work, but the wider context of our foreign relations.

Like any other respected judicial body, the Privy Council's views would be useful and possibly have persuasive weight. However, it is inappropriate for what many regard as a foreign court, one which sits in a foreign country, and which consists of foreign judges, to have the final say on what this country can or cannot do in relation to the applicability of international treaty or human-rights obligations.

Even the committee, aware of its awkward place in the Commonwealth, frequently leaves matters that are squarely for local authorities in those authorities’ hands.

Mr Al-Rawi should consider, too, the analogy with our election laws. Because elections relate directly to the national interest, election disputes by law go no further than the Court of Appeal. There is no bar here, but the principle is the same.

Not only would it be unbecoming for the Privy Council to hear this case, it would also be inconsistent with Cabinet’s policy. If there has been one theme in the State’s wilfully ad-hoc handling of these matters, it has been that this country will not bow to foreigners.

Why genuflect to the crown?

Further, the legal issues in dispute – relating to the entrenchment of treaties – are also symbolically tied to the authority of our Parliament itself.

Resort to the judicial committee could bog us down for weeks, if not months, pending hearings (even allowing for an “expedited” track).

“The State has not taken steps to deport the minor even though it was free to do that,” Mr Al-Rawi also said on Tuesday.

In fact whether the State was “free” to deport a child by pirogue is precisely the dispute.

That legal dispute should ideally be resolved within our borders, notwithstanding the place of the Privy Council in our Constitution.