Back to the root issue

THE COURT of Appeal’s historic ruling on Wednesday in relation to the injunction against the Prime Minister tabling a controversial firearms licence report was not a clear-cut victory for any party involved.

Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, has greeted the decision of Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Peter Rajkumar and Maria Wilson by saying it allows the Government to continue its processes.

But this ignores the fact that Mr Armour had been of the express view that the injunction granted by the High Court on December 13 was patently wrong in law.

That was a position the Court of Appeal this week did not take, instead opting to modify the injunction to allow a process of private publication for the purpose of giving people subject to adverse findings a chance to reply.

Meanwhile, former commissioner of police Gary Griffith has claimed vindication.

However, the Court of Appeal’s ruling effectively points to the fact that the substantive issue in this matter is the question of the legality of Dr Rowley’s actions in constituting a special investigatory committee to author the report in the first place.

In modifying the injunction first granted by Justice Devindra Rampersad, the court has acknowledged its excessive breadth, even as it declined to go further in dismantling the interim measure altogether.

We are of the view that the High Court risked being guilty of judicial overreach in this matter. But that is not the view of the Court of Appeal, which has, quite fairly, placed renewed emphasis on the meat of this matter.

That matter is the appropriate extent of prime ministerial power as it relates to independent institutions and the bodies meant to regulate them, namely, in this instance, the Police Service Commission.

The net effect of the court’s maintaining of the injunction is to protect the status quo pending the resolution of the issues in this case relating to the separation of powers.

At the same time, it is to allow the State to take the steps necessary to get the full story in relation to the system of the granting of firearms licences.

The question which lawyers for the PM will have to answer is why were the traditional conduits by which police regulation is managed deemed inadequate in relation to whatever concerns were had in relation to FULs (firearm user's licences)?

Also, why have people who are adversely implicated not yet been given a chance to reply?

Whatever the public-interest issues that are involved, the evolving picture from various court rulings suggests a lack of constitutional clarity here.

It should not have come to this, but this is a mess which hopefully the court can clear up.