JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, May 20, 2025

Privy Council sedition ruling a win for media and free speech in T&T—Maharaj

by

Joshua Seemungal
569 days ago
20231029
MP for Chaguanas West Dinesh Rambally, left, chats with attorney  Kiel Taklalsingh, centre, and Ramesh Lawerance Maharaj, SC, during a press conference at Lakshmi Girls’ Hindu College, St Augustine, yesterday.

MP for Chaguanas West Dinesh Rambally, left, chats with attorney Kiel Taklalsingh, centre, and Ramesh Lawerance Maharaj, SC, during a press conference at Lakshmi Girls’ Hindu College, St Augustine, yesterday.

JOSHUA SEEMUNGAL

Joshua Seemu­n­gal

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

joshua.seemu­n­gal@guardian.co.tt

In what is be­ing de­scribed as a win for the me­dia and free speech by for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj, SC, the Privy Coun­cil ruled that for some­one to be charged with sedi­tion in T&T, the State will have to prove that the per­son or pub­lished speech in­cit­ed vi­o­lence or pub­lic dis­or­der.

At a press con­fer­ence at Lak­sh­mi Girls’ Hin­du School in St Au­gus­tine yes­ter­day, Ma­haraj said the in­ter­pre­ta­tion came af­ter an Oc­to­ber 12 Privy Coun­cil rul­ing on a con­sti­tu­tion­al chal­lenge of the sedi­tion law in T&T by Vi­jay Ma­haraj on be­half of his late fa­ther, for­mer Sanatan Dhar­ma Ma­ha Sab­ha sec­re­tary gen­er­al Sat­narayan Ma­haraj.

“This is one of the most land­mark de­ci­sions in Trinidad and To­ba­go be­cause the Gov­ern­ment could have used the sedi­tion act to op­press the me­dia, to op­press free speech. It would be very easy if the Gov­ern­ment had con­trol of the pros­e­cu­tion process, and I mean any gov­ern­ment, to be able to use the sedi­tion act to ha­rass the me­dia,” he said.

Ma­haraj said while the Privy Coun­cil on Oc­to­ber 12 ruled that it could not ex­am­ine the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the sedi­tion law in T&T be­cause it is ex­ist­ing law and was saved, the Privy Coun­cil de­cid­ed that un­der com­mon law it could de­ter­mine if the de­f­i­n­i­tion of the law met com­mon law re­quire­ments. He said the Coun­cil ruled that the sedi­tion law did not meet the re­quire­ments of com­mon law, so it ruled that proof of in­ten­tion of vi­o­lence or pub­lic dis­or­der was re­quired.

“If ac­tion has to be tak­en with re­spect to those state­ments that Mr Sat Ma­haraj made now, it would be un­law­ful for the po­lice to do it.

“So that the state­ments Mr Sat Ma­haraj made, al­though peo­ple may dis­agree with it, did not con­sti­tute sedi­tion and there’s no de­ci­sion that says it con­sti­tutes sedi­tion. But the most im­por­tant part of this de­vel­op­ment of the law is that if the po­lice want to use this sedi­tion law, they can­not on­ly sat­is­fy them­selves as to what is in the statute in black and white, but they al­so have to sat­is­fy the in­ten­tion to cause vi­o­lence or pub­lic dis­or­der.

“And if they can’t sat­is­fy that, they wouldn’t have a war­rant, they wouldn’t have a pros­e­cu­tion, as you would have seen the judges in even di­rect­ing ju­ries would tell the ju­ry that if you don’t have that, you can­not prove the of­fence,” Ma­haraj said.

Go­ing for­ward, ac­cord­ing to the se­nior coun­sel, even if you use in­flam­ma­to­ry state­ments against a Prime Min­is­ter, Op­po­si­tion Leader or any­body, as long as you do not in­cite vi­o­lence or pub­lic dis­or­der, there is no crim­i­nal of­fence. He said, how­ev­er, there may be a civ­il ac­tion still for defama­tion.

He al­so be­lieved that fol­low­ing the rul­ing, there ex­ists room for peo­ple charged with sedi­tion to pos­si­bly take le­gal ac­tion against the State.

“If it falls with­in four years—if what hap­pened or the vi­o­la­tion or the search of the prop­er­ty oc­curred with­in the last four years, you will have a cause of ac­tion be­cause you al­ways have to file ac­tion with­in four years of the event on which you re­ly up­on to bring the ac­tion ei­ther in tort, neg­li­gent or it’s a con­sti­tu­tion­al right. We don’t have a lim­i­ta­tion rule, but if you wait too much, you can be de­nied re­lief, but the fact that this de­ci­sion was giv­en in 2023, if there’s a con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tion, a court would be hard-pressed to hold that there is a de­lay be­cause it’s on­ly re­cent­ly de­cid­ed that they may have a right to go to the court. So the an­swer is yes if it falls with­in the lim­i­ta­tion pe­ri­od of four years,” he said.

Vi­jay Ma­haraj took the mat­ter to the Privy Coun­cil af­ter the Court of Ap­peal over­turned High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad’s de­ci­sion to strike down as­pects of the leg­is­la­tion, which he ruled were un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

Sat Ma­haraj filed the law­suit af­ter po­lice ex­e­cut­ed search war­rants on the SDMS’ me­dia house Cen­tral Broad­cast­ing Ser­vices Lim­it­ed (CB­SL) af­ter he made a se­ries of in­cen­di­ary state­ments on his Ma­ha Sab­ha Strikes Back pro­gramme on TV Jaagri­ti on April 15, 2019.

Ma­haraj claimed that cit­i­zens liv­ing in To­ba­go are lazy and la­belled the men as rapists.

While no crim­i­nal charges were brought against him or CB­SL, he sug­gest­ed that such was in­evitable while ad­dress­ing sup­port­ers dur­ing SDMS In­di­an Ar­rival Day cel­e­bra­tions that year.

In 2019, po­lit­i­cal leader of the Pro­gres­sive De­mo­c­ra­t­ic Pa­tri­ots Wat­son Duke, then PSA pres­i­dent, was charged with sedi­tion. The charges against him were dropped in Jan­u­ary 2020.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored