Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - Hier 20:57

Activist challenges constitutionality of SoE regulations

SOCIAL activist and blogger Vishal Persad has launched a legal challenge against portions of the emergency powers regulations, 2024. In a constitutional motion docketed to Justice Westmin James, Persad has argued that regulations 12(a), 14(1), and regulation 2 are unconstitutional, void, and not reasonably justifiable for addressing the public emergency. Persad is represented by attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Kristy Mohan and Keron Ramkhalwhan. They have argued that the specific regulations infringe on constitutional rights and are excessively broad in scope. Persad contends that certain regulations under the state of emergency (SoE) are inconsistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution. Persad’s lawsuit argues that the vague and undefined term “public order” could be misused to suppress fundamental freedoms such as free speech, assembly, and political expression. The claim, filed on January 28, referred to the President’s statement, read in Parliament on January 13, and the Prime Minister’s during the debate for a three-month extension of the state of emergency (SoE). The SoE was declared on December 30, to target violent crime and gang-related shootings, yet Persad contends, the impugned regulations could extend far beyond this purpose. Persad's attorneys argue that the regulations are overly broad and grant unchecked powers to law enforcement, creating risks of arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention. The claim contends neither the President’s official statement nor parliamentary debates referenced threats to public order as a justification for the SoE. Instead, it said Dr Rowley noted the emergency was laser-focused on curbing gang violence and high-powered firearms use. Persad is questioning why the regulations contain sweeping provisions criminalising speech or conduct deemed prejudicial to “public order,” which could include political gatherings, protests, or public statements critical of the government. Persad argues that the police service has historically interpreted public order issues as relating to protests, political rallies, and public marches. This, he said, raises serious concerns about how these regulations could be applied, particularly in an election year, where political speech and demonstrations are expected to be vibrant and, at times, contentious. One of the central issues raised in Persad’s claim is the risk of abuse owing to the vague language in the regulations. “The risk of a vague emergency power that police officers and/or other persons responsible for enforcing these regulations can use and apply arbitrarily is too significant. This risk is exacerbated because the regulations provide executive detention with restricted/ delayed access to judicial determination.” The lawsuit, which followed a pre-action letter on January 1, said under regulation 14 individuals might be detained without a warrant for up to 48 hours, with potential extensions of up to seven days, and with restricted access to bail or habeas corpus. It also expressed concern that regulation 14 could have a “chilling effect on free speech,” as political statements, campaign rhetoric, or even social media posts could be deemed prejudicial to public order and result in severe penalties, including a fine of $100,000 and five years in prison. Persad said a blanket criminalisation of vague public order offences could result in harsh punishments, even for minor infractions. Persad's legal team further argues that the regulations are not rationally connected to the stated purpose of the SoE and exceeded the President’s constitutional authority under Section 7. The lawsuit cited the United Kingdom’s Public Order Act, of 1986, which, it said, provided clear guidelines and safeguards for restricting speech and assemblies and was an example of how public order laws should be carefully tailored to prevent abuse. On January 6, the Attorney General’s Office responded to Persad’s pre-action letter, rejecting his request to amend the regulations. The government maintains that the measures are necessary for national security. Commenting on the action taken, Taklalsingh said, "Any matter involving the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression and assembly is an important constitutional claim particularly during an election year. "How much those rights should be curtailed during a state of emergency is a matter of law and proportionality and my team and I look forward to a judicial determination on this matter." The post Activist challenges constitutionality of SoE regulations appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.