Appeal Court overturns judge's ruling – Sedition still law

TT’s sedition laws are back in effect.

On Friday, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Charmaine Pemberton and Maria Wilson allowed the Attorney General’s appeal of a judge’s ruling which found that parts of that law were unconstitutional, as it infringed on the rights of citizens to freedom of expression, thought and freedom of the press.

The AG was not successful in one minor aspect of the appeal. In his decision in January, last year, Seepersad found sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act “patently inconsistent and at odds with Section 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees that Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign, democratic state.

“In addition, they violate the rule of law because they lack certainty, are vague and so their status as law cannot be reasonably justified in this sovereign, democratic state,” the judge said. The effect of Seepersad's ruling meant that people could no longer be charged with the act of sedition.

In its ruling on Friday, the Court of Appeal held sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act did not violate the principles of legal certainty, and met the requirements of valid law.

The judges also held that the law defined the criminal offence with sufficient clarity, and anyone charged with the offence, with proper and competent legal counsel, could understand what conduct was prohibited.

Mohammed, who read out parts of the ruling at a virtual hearing, also said the savings law clause – a general clause in the Constitution that saves all pre-existing law from challenge, including those incompatible with the fundamental-rights guarantee also in the Constitution – saved the Sedition Act and can only be changed by Parliament.

Sat Maharaj and his media company, Central Broadcasting Services Ltd, filed the constitutional claim after Maharaj made certain statements on his Maha Sabha Strikes Back programme on TV Jaagriti on April 15, 2019. He said citizens living in Tobago were lazy and the men were rapists.

He had not been charged, but the Telecommunications Authority (TATT) considered the statements divisive and this led to an investigation by police to determine whether the statements were of a seditious nature. Police raided the CBSL’s offices on two occasions. Maharaj said he presumed he would be charged for sedition.

An originating summons was filed by his attorneys, but he died and the judge allowed his son Vjiay to replace his father as a claimant in the proceedings. The AG’s appeal of this substitution was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.