Judicial overreach

THE HIGH Court on Tuesday blocked the Prime Minister from tabling in Parliament a key report relating to the regulation of firearms in this country.

It is a decision that should urgently be appealed. The State is correct in announcing its intention to do so.

The case brought by former police commissioner Gary Griffith against Dr Rowley and the National Security Council is as important as it is complex.

It is a key test of the limits of prime ministerial authority as it pertains to a sensitive matter of national security.

The case’s gravitas, however, is no justification for a blurring of the lines that demarcate the separation of powers. That is what High Court judge Justice Devindra Rampersad’s interim injunction does.

We understand there is a real risk of prejudicial material coming to light in relation to Mr Griffith through the publication of this report in Parliament.

A recruitment process, with which he has been involved, is ongoing for the post of police commissioner.

If the Police Service Commission, the independent body which must select the next top cop, has not already factored in the National Security Council’s report on activities relating to the granting of firearm licences, publication in Parliament will almost certainly permit it to do so.

More generally, it is also true that no citizen should be subject to unjust smears or libel under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. That is the stated concern of many onlookers, not just Mr Griffith.

But it is either that Parliament is supreme or it is not.

The risk of damage to the reputation of Mr Griffith is a risk borne not uniquely by him, but by every citizen of this parliamentary democracy, which, if it is to function, must bestow on MPs certain privileges and responsibilities.

Members must be free to account to the electorate in Parliament through statements, reports, motions and debates.

The Parliament and its committees must also be free to engage in fact-finding, including through reports submitted to it.

The judge was disturbed by the apparent failure of the State to back up a purported written assurance not to table the report.

However, for any government official to promise not to table a report of this nature pending this lawsuit would be equivalent to conceding that the report is not a vital document of the highest public interest.

And it would be to hand over a basic power enjoyed by all parliamentary representatives to the court, without any judicial weighing of the public-interest considerations that arise.

We need courts to hold governments to account.

At the same time, the courts should be enhancing the ability of our parliamentarians to account to the people, not restricting it.