THREE Appeal Court judges will on Wednesday say if an injunction against the Prime Minister from publishing the contents of a controversial firearm user’s licence (FUL) audit report in Parliament, should remain in place.

On Tuesday, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Peter Rajkumar and Maria Wilson agreed to hear Dr Rowley’s appeal as an urgent one and at the end of a full day of submissions, they said they will give their decision on Wednesday.

Bereaux said the oral decision will be delivered at 10 am as they needed more time to think and consider the issues raised in the prime minister’s appeal.

On December 13, High Court judge Devindra Rampersad granted the injunction in favour of former commissioner of police Gary Griffith after the State failed to give an undertaking that the audit report would not be laid in Parliament. Almost immediately, the State filed an appeal to "correct the errors" made by the judge. There are ten grounds of appeal, in all.

Griffith, now the political leader of the National Transformation Alliance, 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's licensing regime, its operations, and the issue of FULs.

Griffith, 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 party and his decision to reapply to be top cop.

On Tuesday, lead attorney for the Prime Minister, Russell Martineau, SC, said the audit report dealt with the issuance of firearms and was directly related to the Government's ability to establish policies to deal with crime.

“It is public knowledge what our crime situation is… The evidence shows that firearms are a central issue when dealing with crime,” he said.

Martineau said Rampersad was wrong to not consider the assurance given by the AG’s office that the report will not be published until those who are adversely affected are given an opportunity to make representations, including Griffith. He said the injunction prevents anyone adversely affected from getting that opportunity since it was too wide.

Martineau also said Griffith’s fear of the report being published before he is allowed to respond to it, was an empty one.

“The word of the appellant must mean something. There was no reason to come to court. We had hoped the judge would have said, ‘I am not granting the injunction.’”

In granting the injunction, Rampersad pointed out that despite the assurances of the State that the contents of the report will not be published in Parliament, none was given in court. The judge also held there was a serious issue raised in Griffith’s claim to be tried.

However, Martineau also said an undertaking in court was not required