Much ado from Al-Rawi

DINESH RAMBALLY

ANY ATTORNEY General who is worth his salt will, at the very least, be straightforward with the country, even if he is capable of no other virtue.

I note with some annoyance the continuing and baseless rant of AG Faris Al-Rawi in matters on which he clearly does not have a proper grasp. It is either surprising – or perhaps duplicitous? – that he displays a lack of appreciation of basic legal principles and procedures in law.

At last Friday’s parliamentary session, the AG personally singled me out as being the person involved in a matter seeking to challenge the quarantine regulations which we lost before the courts.

For his edification, and for setting the record straight with the country, I outline the following.

The intended claimant claimed that she, like any other citizen of TT, had an express, statutory right to re-enter TT pursuant to Section 4 (1) of the Immigration Act Chapter 18:01, which specifically provides that:

“A citizen of Trinidad and Tobago has the right to be admitted into Trinidad and Tobago.”

Regulation 10 of the covid19 regulations is brazenly designed to control and/or restrict entry to Trinidadians and Tobagonians into their home country.

At the heart of the intended claim was the issue of whether the Government has the power or legal authority to make a regulation closing all air and sea ports which displaced primary legislation – the Immigration Act. The regulations to close the ports of entry is in defiance of citizens’ rights to be admitted back into this country. These regulations reflect the new policy of this government which is harsh, unfair and reeks of maladministration.

The intended action was simply seeking clarification from the court as to the legality of such an irregular way of displacing primary legislation.

Further, proper procedures exist for when new policies are being made that conflict with existing laws. Nowhere is it stated that one such procedure is for the Government to use a mere rule-making power granted by general words in a statute to displace primary legislation. To do so would be antithetical to respect for the rule of law.

In an ordinary day, no AG would need to be reminded of this. But these are not ordinary times, and the pretence at upholding the principles of good and lawful governance is a clear demonstration that as a country and under this present administration, we have lost our way.

The rule of law is a fundamental feature of a solid democracy. It simply means that no government is above the law, no government must act outside of the lawfully granted powers. To do so would be acting
ultra vires or beyond the limitations of its powers.

It is within the power of a court to make such a determination in judicial review proceedings. Nothing is unusual about seeking clarification from a court on such a matter of national interest and importance. The AG’s reaction betrays his discomfort with this issue. One is left to wonder why.

In a pre-action protocol letter addressed to the Minister of Health, the Minister of National Security and copied to the AG, the pillars of democracy (entailing principles of statutory interpretation, legal certainty, rule of law etc) were explained in great detail. The purpose of such an explanation was to allow those who were making unlawful decisions to be reminded of what was the right thing to do.

The intended action did not proceed beyond the pre-action stage especially since the intended claimant was immediately granted an exemption to return to Trinidad. No further action was therefore taken. No case was lost to the AG.

The very issues that were raised in that pre-action protocol letter are yet to be directly decided in a court of law. If these matters are not judicially addressed, our constitutional rights and our democracy will both run the risk of being ripped, one stitch at a time. Ironically, these are the very pillars that one would expect a robust and respectable AG to defend and safeguard.

The AG boasts that he is going to be seeking costs, no doubt as a way of punishing those who have challenged him. Such boasting does not auger well for the country. Yet, one may equally ask whether he should not be the first to pay costs to the thousands of people who have had to challenge the Government over its unlawful actions and who successfully obtained relief before the courts.

As for the AG’s recent challenge to the case concerning the sedition law, parties were ordered by the court to bear their own costs. That matter is
sub judice as it is well on the way to the Privy Council. I take this opportunity to remind Al-Rawi that he himself publicly stated that the matter had far-reaching implications for the laws of TT.

It is high time the AG stops “gallerying” himself and moves the spotlight to more pertinent issues affecting citizens of TT. He must move away from talking with flourish to talking with facts. It is the very least he can do in such a respectable office.

Dinesh Rambally the MP for Chaguanas West