Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A High Court de­ci­sion block­ing the pub­li­ca­tion of an au­dit re­port in­to firearm users’ li­cens­es (FULs) is­sued be­tween 2016 and 2021 has been over­turned. The re­port was com­mis­sioned by the Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Coun­cil (NSC).

On Tues­day, an ap­pel­late pan­el com­pris­ing Judges Prakash Moo­sai, Gillian Lucky, and James Aboud ruled that Jus­tice Devin­dra Ram­per­sad erred when he grant­ed the pro­hi­bi­tion in 2023 in re­sponse to a law­suit filed by for­mer po­lice com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith.

The ap­peal, brought by the NSC, was up­held, while a cross-ap­peal by Grif­fith chal­leng­ing Jus­tice Ram­per­sad’s find­ing that the NSC had ju­ris­dic­tion to ini­ti­ate the probe was dis­missed.

The rul­ing opens the pos­si­bil­i­ty for the re­port’s pub­li­ca­tion, pro­vid­ed Grif­fith and oth­ers named in it are first con­sult­ed. How­ev­er, any de­ci­sion to re­lease the re­port now rests with Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar and her Cab­i­net, who cur­rent­ly con­sti­tute the NSC.

The ap­pel­late pan­el found that the au­dit com­mit­tee’s ap­point­ment dur­ing the tenure of for­mer Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley was law­ful un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion.

“While there is no con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­vi­sion that ex­press­ly au­tho­ris­es the es­tab­lish­ment of the au­dit com­mit­tee, Sec­tion 75 must be in­ter­pret­ed pur­po­sive­ly so as to en­able the Cab­i­net to re­spond ef­fec­tive­ly to gov­er­nance chal­lenges, and im­por­tant­ly, to present bills to Par­lia­ment to amend the law if found to be nec­es­sary,” the judges said.

“The au­dit com­mit­tee’s man­date, which cen­tred on op­er­a­tions com­pli­ance with­in the Firearms Reg­istry, fell square­ly with­in the Ex­ec­u­tive’s re­mit to gath­er in­for­ma­tion and de­vel­op pol­i­cy re­spons­es,” they added.

The judges ruled that Jus­tice Ram­per­sad was wrong to pre­clude pub­li­ca­tion of the re­port, in­clud­ing the lay­ing of its ex­ec­u­tive sum­ma­ry in Par­lia­ment, on the ba­sis that Grif­fith had not been giv­en the op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­spond to ad­verse find­ings be­fore sub­mis­sion. The court found that the tri­al judge had failed to con­sid­er an un­der­tak­ing from the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al that Grif­fith and oth­ers named in the re­port would be con­sult­ed pri­or to pub­li­ca­tion.

“This was the pru­dent course and one the tri­al judge ought to have tak­en in­to ac­count. He did not do so,” the judges said.

They al­so found that Jus­tice Ram­per­sad erred in rul­ing that the com­mit­tee could not seek the views of af­fect­ed par­ties af­ter sub­mit­ting its re­port, ar­gu­ing that the judge wrong­ly as­sumed that the au­dit com­mit­tee’s man­date had end­ed.

While the pan­el ex­pressed “dis­qui­et” over com­ments made by Row­ley when the pub­li­ca­tion was pro­posed, it ruled that such re­marks were in­suf­fi­cient to in­val­i­date the re­port.

“An oth­er­wise fair­ly ex­e­cut­ed in­ves­ti­ga­to­ry ex­er­cise can­not be sub­se­quent­ly deemed un­fair sole­ly be­cause of ques­tion­able com­men­tary made by the re­cip­i­ent,” the judges said.

Grif­fith, who served as po­lice com­mis­sion­er from 2018 to 2021, said he first learned of the au­dit when for­mer na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty min­is­ter Fitzger­ald Hinds an­nounced it in No­vem­ber 2021. The an­nounce­ment fol­lowed the Po­lice Ser­vice Com­mis­sion’s (PolSC) de­ci­sion, led by for­mer chair­man Bliss Seep­er­sad, to with­draw his act­ing ap­point­ment amid con­cerns raised by Row­ley re­gard­ing FULs is­sued dur­ing Grif­fith’s tenure.

Grif­fith said Hinds in­di­cat­ed that the au­dit was or­dered af­ter the NSC re­ceived a “fact-find­ing re­port” from re­tired ACP Arthur Bar­ring­ton and re­tired Chief of De­fence Staff Hay­den Pritchard, while the PolSC re­ceived an in­ves­tiga­tive re­port from re­tired Judge Stan­ley John. Grif­fith claimed that the le­gal ba­sis for ap­point­ing the com­mit­tee, its terms of ref­er­ence, and the time­frame for com­ple­tion were not dis­closed.

He added that al­though the com­mit­tee con­duct­ed its in­ves­ti­ga­tion and pro­duced the re­port be­tween No­vem­ber 2021 and Ju­ly 2022, he was nev­er con­tact­ed for an in­ter­view.

Grif­fith has al­so sued Seep­er­sad over her con­tro­ver­sial de­ci­sion to with­draw a mer­it list while he was seek­ing reap­point­ment. The tri­al con­clud­ed last month, and High Court Judge Kevin Ram­cha­ran is ex­pect­ed to de­liv­er his judg­ment in ear­ly Ju­ly.

The NSC was rep­re­sent­ed by Rus­sell Mar­tineau, SC, Ker­wyn Gar­cia, SC, Te­nille Ramkissoon, Kendra Mark-Gor­don, Nisa Sim­mons, and Chantelle Le Gall. Grif­fith’s le­gal team in­clud­ed Avory Sinanan, SC, Lar­ry Lal­la, SC, and Ajay Ba­ball. Mem­bers of the au­dit com­mit­tee were rep­re­sent­ed by Gilbert Pe­ter­son, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Brent James, Fazana Ali, and Mur­vani Ojah Ma­haraj.