IN less than two weeks, and unless an undertaking is given by the Prime Minister, the National Security Minister and the National Security Council (NSC), the High Court will give a date for its ruling on an injunction former police commissioner Gary Griffith is asking for to prevent the publication of the controversial firearm user’s licence (FUL) audit report in Parliament.

On Wednesday, the first hearing since Griffith received the court’s permission to challenge the decision of the prime minister, the members of his Cabinet who sit on the NSC and three police officers who signed the report came up before Justice Devindra Rampersad.

On October 28, Rampersad granted Griffith leave to pursue a judicial review claim challenging the legality of the setting-up of the committee to do the audit and its investigation.

Named in Griffith’s lawsuit are Dr Rowley; former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi; ministers Fitzgerald Hinds, Colm Imbert, Stuart Young and Marvin Gonzales, as members of the NSC; as well as retired police officers Wellington Virgil, Raymond Craig, and Lennard Charles, who formed part of the audit team.

On Wednesday, the judge was expected to hear submissions on Griffith’s injunction application as well as one for the disclosure of the names of everyone involved in the audit.

However, he has asked the parties to discuss the possibility of an undertaking not to publish the report until Griffith’s claim is determined.

“If no undertaking is given, then I will have to rule on the application,” he said.

At a virtual hearing, Griffith’s lead attorney, Avory Sinanan, SC, said his client took no comfort in an assurance from Young that there was no intention to lay the report in Parliament nor a danger of its being laid.

He also said statements by the AG that while there was no immediate intention to lay the report in Parliament, “it will go there eventually” left his client “nervous and concerned,” as the report was in the “political gayelle.”

However, he said his team – which also includes attorneys Larry Lalla and Vijay Birbal – to speak with attorneys for the other side, led by Senior Counsel Russell Martineau and Gilbert Peterson, “to tailor something comfortable to both sides.”

In his submissions, Martineau said, “as far as an undertaking is concerned…assurances have been given that it will not, under government authority or state authority, be published.”

The State was also told to put in another affidavit to address a suggestion that there were at least five other police officers involved in the audit, four of whom are unnamed and were allegedly appointed by the acting commissioner, and another whose name was disclosed as Brian Pierre. The three retired officers named in Griffith’s lawsuit and Pierre signed the report.

Griffith wants the names of the other four officers alluded to in Young’s affidavit, since Sinanan said the fact that only four signed did not exculpate the others from being involved in an “illegal a