Too much power for Govt

Attorney General John Jeremie, delivering an address to the Commonwealth Law Ministers last Monday, made clear his desire to have a sub-organisation within his office whose decisions would not be subject to judicial review. His justification for this "Central Authority" was that it was needed to strike a balance between human rights and "the need in mutual assistance for speed in the resolution of criminal matters." Mr Jeremie also specified the rights that might be transgressed by the Authority — privacy, property, and liberty amongst them.

"It cannot be the function of the courts in this area to balance rights!" Mr Jeremie stated emphatically. "We can no longer accept an ever-expanding list of absolute rights."

Is this, then, the thinking behind the Government’s initiatives to undermine the Freedom of Information Act, to introduce a Judicial Amendment Bill which will curtail public interest legislation, and a Telecommunications Code that will help limit freedom of speech? It certainly seems so. Mr Jeremie’s comments would be worrisome even if they came from a government committed to transparency in a society where democratic traditions were strongly rooted. This being manifestly not the case, his comments are cause for deepest concern.

In the first place, it is completely unacceptable that any State organisation should be given immunity to judicial review. The Attorney General, although he is supposed to represent the State and not the Government of the day, is a political appointee. Mr Jeremie, by wearing his balisier tiepin in Parliament and at official functions, has made it crystal-clear where his loyalties lie.

In the second place, it is not even clear that the AG’s office adheres strictly to the rule of law in all matters. Attorney and Independent Senator Dana Seetahal, for example, has questioned whether the fact that the Special Anti-Crime Unit falls under the AG’s aegis may not mean that this body has questionable legal status. Add to this the Government’s desire to create another organisation within the AG’s office that will be immune to the courts, and it seems that the Patrick Manning administration, whether intentionally or inadvertently, is creating a situation open to the worst sort of abuses.

Last, but certainly not least, Mr Jeremie himself noted that Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution gives the individual the right to life, liberty, security of the person, equality before the law, and to a private life. As several commentators have lately noted, the second and third rights have to all intents and purposes been diminished by the Government’s failure to control crime. Nor does the average citizen believe that everyone gets equal treatment before the law, since too often wealthy and well-connected persons have received favourable treatment from the courts. And, between phone-tapping equipment and the high-tech blimp, the Government is willing and able to intrude on citizens’ privacy — though not, apparently, those citizens who are bringing in multi-million-dollar drug shipments or planting garbagecan bombs.

Mr Jeremie also apparently avoided mentioning the right enshrined in Chapter 1, Section Four, sub-section (d) of the Constitution — "the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions" — perhaps because his Prime Minister has lost certain court cases in relation to this right.

The main point, however, is that it is in general a bad principle to grant too much power to governments. History shows that this always leads to the abuse and oppression of citizens. There is no evidence to suggest that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago would prove an exception to this rule.