RAD­HI­CA DE SIL­VA

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

rad­hi­ca.sookraj@guardian.co.tt

For­mer At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj says sedi­tion is dif­fi­cult to prove as in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence or dis­or­der is es­sen­tial for a sedi­tion con­vic­tion.

Speak­ing ex­clu­sive­ly to Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day, Ma­haraj said the on­go­ing case against pop­u­lar vlog­ger Chris­t­ian Hugh­es, known as “Chris Must List,” has raised con­cerns about free speech ver­sus in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence.  

He ref­er­enced the 2023 Privy Coun­cil rul­ing in At­tor­ney Gen­er­al vs Vi­jay Ma­haraj, which stat­ed that “there must be an in­ten­tion to in­cite vi­o­lence or dis­or­der.”

“The pros­e­cu­tion must prove there was an in­tent to in­cite vi­o­lence or dis­or­der be­yond a rea­son­able doubt. The Con­sti­tu­tion of T&T is based on de­mo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples and an es­sen­tial in­gre­di­ent of democ­ra­cy is the right of in­di­vid­u­als to ex­press their po­lit­i­cal views, the free­dom of ex­pres­sion and the free­dom of the me­dia and per­sons con­nect­ed to the me­dia would en­joy that free­dom,” Ma­haraj ex­plained.

While Ma­haraj re­frained from com­ment­ing di­rect­ly on Hugh­es’ case due to a lack of de­tails, he pro­vid­ed clar­i­ty on the law.

He stat­ed that ac­cord­ing to the Sedi­tion Act of 1920, a sedi­tious in­ten­tion in­cludes bring­ing the gov­ern­ment or its in­sti­tu­tions in­to ha­tred or con­tempt, rais­ing dis­con­tent among cit­i­zens, and pro­mot­ing hos­til­i­ty among dif­fer­ent com­mu­ni­ty sec­tions.

“The act gives wide dis­cre­tion for pros­e­cu­tion un­der Sec­tion 4, but the Privy Coun­cil has made it clear: in­ten­tion to in­cite vi­o­lence must be proven,” Ma­haraj ex­plained.

He said this high bar for proof is es­sen­tial in bal­anc­ing the act against con­sti­tu­tion­al rights such as free­dom of ex­pres­sion and the press, as en­shrined in Sec­tions 4(e), 4(i), and 4(k) of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Con­sti­tu­tion.

Ma­haraj fur­ther not­ed that Hugh­es, in his de­fence, could ar­gue his ac­tions were aimed at in­form­ing the pub­lic rather than in­cit­ing vi­o­lence.

“The court will have to con­sid­er whether Hugh­es’ in­ten­tion was to pub­lish in­for­ma­tion for the pub­lic good or to in­cite vi­o­lence,” Ma­haraj said. “Ul­ti­mate­ly, the pros­e­cu­tion bears the bur­den of prov­ing guilt be­yond a rea­son­able doubt,” he added.

He stat­ed that any­one who is found guilty of sedi­tion is li­able on sum­ma­ry con­vic­tion to a fine of $3,000 and im­pris­on­ment for two years. How­ev­er, he not­ed that con­vic­tion in the High Court on in­dict­ment can lead to a fine of $20,000 and im­pris­on­ment for five years.