REGINALD DUMAS

Pt II

THE OCTOBER 2014 judgment by our Court of Appeal upholding what I considered my right as a citizen to seek, in the public interest, review of what I perceived as unlawful constitutional action didn't sit well with the Attorney General (AG) of the day. He sought, and was granted, leave to approach the Privy Council (PC).

Unsurprisingly, he raised the matter of my standing before the court as a citizen, not as a directly affected person (section 14(1) of the Constitution). He went on: 'The issue in this appeal goes far beyond mere matters of procedure but is encrusted with and raises the substantive legal question of the ability of a citizen to seek an interpretation of the Constitution simpliciter when he alleges no breach of any of his constitutional right (sic). This is a fundamental question for which guidance is sought from the highest court of the land. It imports a critical and fundamental extension of the rationale for accessing the Constitution.'

Then, not content with merely seeking guidance, he asserted that '(t)he Court of Appeal's ruling would amount to a significant and unwarranted extension of the law for citizens to bring and maintain (an) action for the interpretation of the Constitution…' The meaning of 'unwarranted' is 'not justified.' Was the AG really saying that a citizen who justifiably felt that the Constitution had been, or was being, violated, shouldn't have the right, except within the restricted scope - warranted, I imagine - of section 14(1), to file an interpretation action? And that silence from citizen and court alike would then be justified?

The government changed in 2015, and the new AG joined his immediate predecessor in opposing me. He even introduced two new arguments, to both of which the PC gave short shrift. One argument quoted from section 38(1) of the Constitution: 'the President' (the correctness of two of whose appointments to the Police Service Commission (PSC) I was questioning) 'shall not be answerable to any court for the performance of the functions of his office or for any act done by him in the performance of those functions.'

The PC's response to this was that the 'protection which the sub-section gives to the President does not prevent the courts from examining the validity of his acts.' This strikes me as very relevant to certain aspects of our present situation.

In May 2017 the PC ruled in my favour. It said I had been '(asserting) a right as a citizen (to seek) the assistance of the courts in the upholding of the Constitution.' It endorsed the assertion of such a right, and commended our Court of Appeal on its 'impressive' 2014 judgment in the matter.

Our Law Association added its approval. It said: '(T)he CoA expanded access of the citizenry to the Supreme Court to challenge what they perceive to be violations of the non-human rights provisions of the Constitution…By permitting (such) access…to persons…whose primary concern is to act in the public inter