In what some say is a first, the Prime Minister has been restrained by the court from laying any part of a controversial firearm user’s licence (FUL) audit report in Parliament.

“I believe it’s the first time a court has granted an injunction against a sitting Prime Minister,” one legal commentator said after Justice Devindra Rampersad granted the injunction to former police commissioner Gary Griffith on Tuesday.

Griffith has complained about the legality of the setting up of the committee by Dr Rowley and his National Security Council (NSC) to investigate the police firearms department licensing regime, its operations, and the issuance of FULs.

The former top cop, who held the post from 2018-2021, said he was concerned that the contents of the report and the process used by the committee – comprising retired police officers – were irretrievably tainted by bad faith and illegality because the Prime Minister had no power to appoint such a committee, and because of statements Dr Rowley made after Griffith announced the launch of his political party and his decision to reapply to be top cop.

On October 28, Griffith was given permission to pursue his judicial review claim against Rowley, the NSC members, and the retired cops who made up the committee.

Griffith also feared publication of the report or any part of it would expose him to public ridicule and, if laid in Parliament, would protect Rowley and the media by qualified or absolute privilege from defamation claims for damages.

In his ruling. Rampersad said he was satisfied there was a serious question raised in the claim to be tried.

“Does the extent of the section 75 power under the Constitution allow the Cabinet, through any of its different incarnations, in this case, the National Security Council, have the power to make inquiries or investigations into the conduct of the Commissioner of Police or other police matters having regard to the provisions of sections 122 and 123 of the Constitution?

“Of course, the Police Service Commission (PSC) has the statutory power to request reports on any matters relating to the management of the service. How that interplays with the section 75 power relied upon by these defendants is a matter for full consideration.”

Rampersad admitted he did not have sight of the report to determine, at a preliminary stage, if the setting-up of the audit committee “transgressed into the domain” of the statutorily and constitutionally comprised body (the PSC), which is intended to be insulated from the Executive.

However, he did say, “The force of the vehemence born out of this report, and expressed in public as alleged by the claimant, suggests that its premature presentation or production would have far-reaching effects in the public domain.

“The Honourable Attorney General seems to have agreed to defer laying the report until the persons about whom it relates have had an opportunity to have their say. That ought to be properly established before this court.”

He also held that Griffith’s position of a right to be h