All our houses

- Photo courtesy Pixabay
- Photo courtesy Pixabay

JUSTICE Frank Seepersad’s ruling on Wednesday that a police raid on a media house last March was unlawful is not only a victory for journalists; it is a victory for everyone who lives in TT.

The framers of our constitution saw fit to enshrine freedom of the press as a fundamental right, separate from freedom of thought and expression.

They acknowledged the important role played by the media in any democracy and, perhaps, also anticipated the unique challenges that members of the Fourth Estate in this small country would face. Their foresight proved warranted.

One Caribbean Media Group Ltd, the Trinidad Express Newspapers and editor-in-chief Omatie Lyder had cause to file a constitutional motion against the State, the police and officers who led a raid on March 11, 2020.

For this newspaper, the issues in the case raised uncomfortable memories of the events of February 2012, when our premises and the home of a senior reporter were similarly transgressed on the strength of a flimsy warrant issued by a justice of the peace. Time and time again, the media are reminded of their flaws and imperfections.

We are told that we are not above the law, that we, too, are accountable. We are reminded – particularly by those whom we investigate or have cause to criticise – that there are limits to serving the public interest, that sometimes that interest involves curtailing publication, that freedom is not absolute.

With all of this we agree. But if the media’s rights are not absolute, neither are the State’s.

This is made clear by Justice Seepersad’s ruling, which found the rushed issuing of two warrants flawed and disproportionate. Furthermore, he urged the State to remove the process of authorising such exceptionally invasive measures out of the hands of officials not schooled in law and the sophisticated balancing exercises it requires.

To the judge’s credit, he was not overly moved by omissions in the formal pleadings before him but focused on the substance of the case. Even so, he did not succumb to overzealous proselytising on behalf of the media.

The constitution, the court said, does not give journalists immunity. Rather, it imposes a duty on authorities to apply a standard of care and caution. But the judgment has implications wider than press freedom.

“The invasion of homes, offices and private spaces amounts to a significant constitutional infringement and should only occur where there exists evident and reasonable justification,” Justice Seepersad said as he raised the bar for that standard.

By shining light and urging change of the paltry requirements for warrants, the judge has served the interests of not just all media houses, but potentially any member of the public whose house might be violated, until now quite possibly without good cause.

Comments

"All our houses"

More in this section