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.

Sunday, July 6, 2025

Sedition difficult to prove—Ramesh

by

393 days ago
20240608
Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, speaks about T&T’s sedition laws at his office in San Fernando yesterday.

Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, speaks about T&T’s sedition laws at his office in San Fernando yesterday.

KRISTIAN DE SILVA

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

rad­hi­ca.sookraj@guardian.co.tt

 

For­mer At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj says sedi­tion is dif­fi­cult to prove as in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence or dis­or­der is es­sen­tial for a sedi­tion con­vic­tion.

Speak­ing ex­clu­sive­ly to Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day, Ma­haraj said the on­go­ing case against pop­u­lar vlog­ger Chris­t­ian Hugh­es, known as “Chris Must List,” has raised con­cerns about free speech ver­sus in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence.  

He ref­er­enced the 2023 Privy Coun­cil rul­ing in At­tor­ney Gen­er­al vs Vi­jay Ma­haraj, which stat­ed that “there must be an in­ten­tion to in­cite vi­o­lence or dis­or­der.”

“The pros­e­cu­tion must prove there was an in­tent to in­cite vi­o­lence or dis­or­der be­yond a rea­son­able doubt. The Con­sti­tu­tion of T&T is based on de­mo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples and an es­sen­tial in­gre­di­ent of democ­ra­cy is the right of in­di­vid­u­als to ex­press their po­lit­i­cal views, the free­dom of ex­pres­sion and the free­dom of the me­dia and per­sons con­nect­ed to the me­dia would en­joy that free­dom,” Ma­haraj ex­plained.

While Ma­haraj re­frained from com­ment­ing di­rect­ly on Hugh­es’ case due to a lack of de­tails, he pro­vid­ed clar­i­ty on the law.

He stat­ed that ac­cord­ing to the Sedi­tion Act of 1920, a sedi­tious in­ten­tion in­cludes bring­ing the gov­ern­ment or its in­sti­tu­tions in­to ha­tred or con­tempt, rais­ing dis­con­tent among cit­i­zens, and pro­mot­ing hos­til­i­ty among dif­fer­ent com­mu­ni­ty sec­tions.

“The act gives wide dis­cre­tion for pros­e­cu­tion un­der Sec­tion 4, but the Privy Coun­cil has made it clear: in­ten­tion to in­cite vi­o­lence must be proven,” Ma­haraj ex­plained.

He said this high bar for proof is es­sen­tial in bal­anc­ing the act against con­sti­tu­tion­al rights such as free­dom of ex­pres­sion and the press, as en­shrined in Sec­tions 4(e), 4(i), and 4(k) of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Con­sti­tu­tion.

Ma­haraj fur­ther not­ed that Hugh­es, in his de­fence, could ar­gue his ac­tions were aimed at in­form­ing the pub­lic rather than in­cit­ing vi­o­lence.

“The court will have to con­sid­er whether Hugh­es’ in­ten­tion was to pub­lish in­for­ma­tion for the pub­lic good or to in­cite vi­o­lence,” Ma­haraj said. “Ul­ti­mate­ly, the pros­e­cu­tion bears the bur­den of prov­ing guilt be­yond a rea­son­able doubt,” he added.

He stat­ed that any­one who is found guilty of sedi­tion is li­able on sum­ma­ry con­vic­tion to a fine of $3,000 and im­pris­on­ment for two years. How­ev­er, he not­ed that con­vic­tion in the High Court on in­dict­ment can lead to a fine of $20,000 and im­pris­on­ment for five years.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored