THE DECISION on the part of authorities to invoke old, colonial-era laws to address the new and disturbing trend of internet personalities brazenly featuring gangsterism is merely the latest sign that our legal framework has not necessarily kept pace with the rapidly changing environment.
The offence of sedition, once believed a relic of the past, has been given new life by two recent developments.
The first is the ruling of the Privy Council a few months ago which preserved the law on the statute books.
The second is the very public citing by police last month of the law in a case involving an internet personality, merely one of several non-nationals who have reportedly published videos featuring avowed gang members.
Though the law has been raised against nationals before, the latter development is the first high-profile case in recent memory against a foreigner.
In October, British law lords rejected lower-court findings that the sedition law – which bans not only seditious statements that might “excite disaffection” against the rule of law but also their publication – was “dangerously wide” and potentially subject to abuse.
London sided with the local Court of Appeal which had preserved the law and set out required “considerations” for cases.
The Judicial Committee further ruled that while our constitution guarantees certain features essential for democracy, such as voting and the separation of powers, “It is not inherent in the democratic nature of the state that there should be judicial review of legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.”
The law is the law. All are duty-bound to uphold it.
In the delicate and difficult balance between individual rights, qualified as they routinely are, and state power, views may vary on the need for certain offences on the books. The history of the use of sedition laws in colonial countries may raise eyebrows.
But it is for the legislature to change any law once upheld in court.
It is for Parliament, too, to decide whether it will ever address the 1969 Immigration Act, which has also featured in recent reports, given its misshapen scheme of “prohibited classes.”
In instances where our MPs have fulfilled their mandate to address modern realities, results have, unfortunately, been mixed.
Of the anti-gang laws of 2018, one lawyer recently remarked, “Who in TT has been convicted of being a gang leader or member?” It may well be that the law’s usefulness was limited to improving state surveillance.
The question thus left unanswered is whether lawmakers are moving efficiently enough to address the modern and urgent needs of those they serve.
More reform to address the complex realities of the global landscape we live in would be a good thing.
The post Old laws appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
