Griffith wants to see policy on legal firearms

FORMER police commissioner and leader of the National Transformation Alliance (NTA) Gary Griffith says there can be no governmental policy for legal firearms.

He has challenged the Prime Minister to provide a copy of such a policy. Griffith was responding to statements made by Dr Rowley who criticised statements made by Justice Frank Seepersad in a ruling over delays by Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher in deciding on Firearm User’s Licence (FUL) applications.

On March 25, Seepersad issued a stinging rebuke of the explanations given to the court in the commissioner’s defence to the lawsuit over a Tobago businessman's seven-year wait.

On March 26, Dr Rowley said Seepersad went “overboard” with his criticisms of the commissioner. He also said judges did not have the power to make national policy including on firearms.

“Activist judges who speak as though they could make the policy and guide public servants what to do, I am saying that the Government’s policy ought to be respected. The Government has no policy to arm the population like Gary Griffith has been doing and advocating in the political arena. A PNM Government has a different approach,” Rowley said.

However, on April 12, in a statement, Griffith said, “There is no such thing as a government policy for legal firearms, and I challenge him to provide documentation to support his claim.”

Griffith said the judge had suggested “a revised approach which prioritises the grant of a FUL license to every law-abiding applicant who is physically and psychologically competent to carry a firearm.”

He questioned if the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers had been crossed.

In his statement, he spoke of his approach to FUL applications and said he issued 2,000 a year compared to other commissioners while guided by the law.

Days after the Prime Minister’s statements, Seepersad was defended by a colleague. “The decision vests with the commissioner under section 17 of the Firearms Act. The Executive plays no role in the process.”

The judge pointed out that the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, was not involved in the case before Seepersad.

"It is therefore odd and inappropriate for the Prime Minister to attack the judge and he is not in a position to say that the judge went a ' bit overboard'.

“It is clear when one reads the judgment that the judge simply suggested a policy review based on the prevailing societal state and there was no usurping of the role vested in the Executive and the Parliament.”