标签： Trinidad and Tobago

Venezuelan activist Yesenia González has voiced her strong support for US intervention in Venezuela, asserting that it is essential to end Nicolás Maduro’s rule and restore justice to the Venezuelan people. Speaking to a Newsday reporter at her office in Port of Spain on October 29, González expressed unwavering confidence that democracy would soon prevail in Venezuela. She criticized Maduro’s administration as a dictatorship, accusing him of severe human rights violations, suppression of free speech, and electoral fraud in the July 28 presidential election. González emphasized that Maduro’s presidency is illegitimate and called for the closure of the Venezuelan Embassy in Trinidad, describing it as an illegal entity. She also condemned Opposition Leader Penelope Beckles for hosting Venezuela’s ambassador, Álvaro Enrique Sánchez Corderoon, labeling it as inappropriate. González believes that US intervention will pave the way for new leadership in Venezuela, led by Edmundo González Urrutia and opposition leader María Corina Machado. She dismissed the National Assembly of Venezuela’s declaration of Trinidadian Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar as persona non grata, calling it a meaningless act by Maduro’s allies. González also addressed the issue of illegal immigration in Trinidad, urging the government to engage in dialogue rather than deporting migrants, whom she described as valuable contributors to the economy. She warned of potential violent uprisings by Maduro’s supporters in Trinidad and called for vigilance against criminal groups like Tren de Aragua. González concluded with a message of hope, urging Venezuelans to stay strong and Trinidadians to remain calm, expressing her belief that Maduro’s rule is nearing its end.

A state of emergency (SoE) in Trinidad and Tobago, initially declared by the President on July 18 and extended by Parliament on July 28, has sparked confusion and legal challenges over its expiration date. While many detainees and their attorneys believed the SoE ended on October 28, government sources clarified that the emergency measures remain in effect until November 2. The SoE was authorized for a three-month period, with a second extension potentially pushing it into the new year. This clarification came amid threats of legal action from attorneys representing detainees held under preventive detention orders signed by Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander. They argued that continued detention after October 28 was unlawful, but government officials maintained that the extension is valid until November 2, and an upcoming parliamentary debate on October 31 to further extend the SoE does not affect the current detention orders. Over 80 detention orders have been issued so far. Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro supported the government’s decision to seek a three-month extension, emphasizing the need for continued vigilance to maintain national stability. He acknowledged that while the initial threat prompting the SoE had been neutralized, criminal networks remain adaptive. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar announced that the motion to extend the SoE will be debated in the House of Representatives on October 31, following a recommendation from Guevarro based on local intelligence and operational assessments.

Opposition Senator Janelle John-Bates has raised significant concerns regarding the government’s approach to child development and public servant compensation. During the Senate budget debate on October 27, John-Bates advocated for earlier screening of infants for learning impediments, arguing that the government’s proposed age of four to five is too late. She emphasized that early detection and intervention are crucial for addressing developmental delays in motor skills, speech, language, social and emotional skills, and cognition. John-Bates pointed out that other countries typically screen children between zero and three years old, leveraging the brain’s neuroplasticity during this critical period. She highlighted the importance of therapies such as speech, physical, occupational, and behavioral interventions to foster proper brain development. Additionally, John-Bates criticized the high cost of educational assessments and therapies, which can be prohibitive for many families. She also addressed the plight of single mothers facing the government’s 3.5% landlord surcharge, noting the difficulty of finding landlords willing to accommodate children. On the issue of public servant back-pay, John-Bates expressed skepticism about the government’s promise to deliver a 10% increase by Christmas, citing the absence of allocated funds in the budget. She graded the budget an ‘F,’ labeling it as ‘fluff, false, and fraudulent.’

In a recent letter to the editor, E Galy’s critique of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s role in the Jason Jones case demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of constitutional law and the judiciary’s function in a democratic society. Galy’s assertion that the Privy Council overstepped its bounds by altering the Constitution is not only incorrect but also dangerously misleading. This rebuttal seeks to clarify the constitutional principles at play and reaffirm the judiciary’s vital role in safeguarding the rule of law.

First and foremost, the Privy Council, as the highest appellate court for Trinidad and Tobago (TT), is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly designates it as the ‘supreme law of the land,’ rendering any inconsistent legislation void. The judiciary, not Parliament, is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional validity. This separation of powers is foundational to preventing elected dictatorship and ensuring democratic governance.

Second, the Jason Jones decision did not ‘change’ the Constitution but rather interpreted it in light of its guarantees of equality, privacy, and personal protection (sections 4 and 5). The court ruled that colonial-era laws criminalizing consensual adult acts in private violated these fundamental rights. This was not judicial activism but the fulfillment of the court’s constitutional duty to strike down laws that contravene the supreme law, as mandated by section 14(1).

Third, Galy’s claim that the court cannot render a law inoperable if it aligns with the Constitution is a fundamental misrepresentation of judicial review. Established in cases like Marbury v Madison (1803) and reaffirmed in Commonwealth jurisprudence, judicial review empowers courts to invalidate statutes inconsistent with the Constitution. This principle ensures that constitutional supremacy is upheld.

Fourth, Galy’s dismissal of ‘changed times’ as irrelevant to constitutional interpretation is misguided. The Constitution is a living document, as affirmed by the Privy Council in cases like Reyes v The Queen (2002) and Matthew v The State (2004). It must be interpreted in a manner that reflects evolving societal standards of dignity and equality.

Galy’s argument, rooted in theocratic posturing rather than constitutional reasoning, conflates religious morality with legal interpretation. This stance is incompatible with the secular rule of law enshrined in TT’s 1976 Constitution. Sovereignty lies with the people and the Constitution, not with religious dogma.

Finally, the assertion that judicial review ‘mutates’ civil and criminal law is legally untenable. When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is void ab initio, ensuring the coherence of the legal system. The judiciary’s role is to preserve constitutional order, not to subvert it.

In conclusion, the Privy Council’s decision in the Jason Jones case was a reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial duty. Public discourse must rise above misconceptions that equate judicial independence with political interference. The true tragedy lies in the persistence of such uninformed critiques in our public dialogue.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN
Birmingham, UK