Trinity Cross case

THE Maha Sabha scored a moral victory yesterday in the High Court when a judge declared that the use of the Trinity Cross — awarded to persons as the country’s highest award for outstanding service — discriminates against Hindus and Muslims.

Justice Peter Jamadar, however, ruled that the courts could not declare invalid, the Order of the Trinity, because it is the declared law of the land.

In an immediate reaction to the judgment, Maha Sabha’s Secretary General Sat Maharaj, said that he will give the Government 21 days to replace the Trinity Cross in time for this year’s Independence Awards in August. If not, Maharaj said, Maha Sabha’s attorneys would appeal that aspect of the judgment all the way to the Privy Council.

The Maha Sabha and the Islamic Relief Centre (IRC) organisations had contended that the Trinity Cross bears a Christian symbol. Dr Fenton Ramsahoye, QC and Anand Ramlogan had argued before Jamadar that given the beliefs of Hindus and Muslims, the Trinity Cross is disrespectful. The Maha Sabha and IRC contended that its use violated sections 4 (b),(d) and (h) of the Constitution.

In an 80-page judgment, Justice Jamadar, presiding in the San Fernando High Court, traced the religious history of Trinidad and Tobago dating back to slavery and indentureship.

He dismissed the State’s submission that the Trinity Cross should not be linked to the concept of the “Trinity” in Christianity. Justice Jamadar stated: “With respect to the first contention, it is in my opinion quite disrespectful and also inacurate to suggest that there are concepts equivalent to the Christian concepts of ‘Trinity’ and ‘Cross’ in Hinduism, or even that there is a concept of ‘trinity’ or ‘cross’ per se in Hinduism.”

The Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award, has been in use since 1969, handed down by Queen Elizabeth II, through Letters Patent — colonial legislation. It was incorporated into the 1976 Republican constitution, the judge noted.

Against that background of how it came into existence, Jamadar dismissed the State’s notion that the Trinity Cross concept was symbolic of the Trinity Hills’ discovery by Christopher Columbus. Jamadar stated that he accepted the argument that Hindus and Muslims would feel a sense of discomfort, to nominate persons among their flock for the nation’s highest award.

Stating that muslims follow a monotheistic faith (oneness of God), Jamadar stated on page 73 of his judgment that the onus was on the State to show how the Trinity Cross could be sustained in a multi-religious society. Senior Counsel Russel Martineau, instructed by Deborah Peake, argued the case for the State.

But the State had shown no accomodation whatsoever, the judge stated, to offset the discriminating effects of the Trinity Cross. Jamadar said that the Trinity Cross is of great national interest.

He stated: “I have come to the conclusion that the creation and continued existence of the Trinity Cross, given the historical, religious and sociological context of Trinidad and Tobago, combined with the experiences, as well as the religious beliefs of Hindus and Muslims, amount to indirect and adverse effects of discrimination against Hindus and muslims.”

However, Jamadar stated that the saving provision in the Constitution in the context of the law establishing the Order of the Trinity — is the law of the land. Such existing law cannot be declared invalid, Jamadar stated, by a mere finding that rights and freedoms have been infringed. The judge therefore ordered both the Maha Sabha/IRC and the State to bear their own costs of the lawsuit.

Senior Attorneys in San Fernando yesterday commented that the judgment was a moral victory and it was left up to the legislature (Parliament) to change the Order of the Trinity law.

(See Judgment on Page 13A)