In a recent letter to the editor, legal expert E Galy expressed strong disapproval of the Privy Council’s decision to accept the appeal in the Jason Jones case. Galy argued that the Privy Council, as Trinidad and Tobago’s supreme judicial tribunal, was not established to alter the Constitution or existing laws. According to Galy, such authority lies solely with Parliament. The court’s role, as outlined by Galy, is to ensure that new laws conform to the Constitution and to uphold laws that have already been passed. Galy emphasized that the court is not empowered to render laws inoperable if they fall within the constitutional framework. In the case of Jason Jones, Galy pointed out that a law was suspended to allow a claimant, whose personal declarations could subject him to police investigation, an opportunity to overturn a law clearly within the constitutional remit. Galy argued that there is no provision in the Constitution or procedural law that permits the judiciary or the Privy Council to entertain such claims. The invocation of ‘changed times’ or ‘new era’ is not a recognized formula in the Constitution, nor is it the role of the Privy Council to adapt the nation to social movements or ideas from elsewhere. Galy concluded by stating that these principles are well-established in law and that any deviation from them could lead to unintended mutations in other branches of law, which is not the responsibility of the Privy Council.