A social media activist has threatened to sue over regulations related to the ongoing State of Emergency (SoE).
Lawyers representing Vishal Persad, who is the administrator of the blog Millenials for Change, made the threat in a pre-action protocol letter sent to President Christine Kangaloo and acting Attorney General Stuart Young on Wednesday.
In the correspondence obtained by Guardian Media, Persad’s lawyer, Keron Ramkhalwhan, stated that his client was only concerned with Regulations 12, 14, and an associated schedule which deals with public order.
The aforementioned regulations prohibit people from influencing public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to public safety and order and empower the police to arrest, detain, and charge alleged offenders.
If eventually convicted, offenders face a maximum penalty of a $100,000 fine and five years imprisonment.
“The Intended Applicant is of the respectful view that while robust measures may be required to treat with a public emergency, such powers should be proportionate, necessary, and limited to powers which are required to treat with the specific public emergency,” Ramkhalwhan said.
Ramkhalwhan, who is representing Persad with Kiel Taklalsingh, suggested that the specific regulations were unlawful and unconstitutional.
“We repeat, the Intended Applicant is NOT challenging the need for a State of Emergency or the remaining regulations that have been promulgated,” he said.
Ramkhalwhan suggested that the inclusion of the words “public order” was excessive and could capture trivial acts that could not be regarded as prejudicial to public safety.
“In other words, the term public order could be wielded by the Executive as a broad sword to cut down the citizens’ rights to severely criticise the Government and/or the Executive through freedom of speech,” he said.
Stating that Regulation 12(a) specifically seeks to prohibit speech, Ramkhalwhan said: “Indeed, in the hands of an overzealous police officer, a citizen could be arrested or detained for merely criticising the Government and/or the police service for its handling of crime.”
He claimed that the Court of Appeal was critical of similar regulations in lawsuits, which were brought by former detainees during the last SoE in 2011.
“The Court considered severing the term from the regulations, however, by the time the matter was determined (in 2024), the regulations were no longer in effect,” he said.
Ramkhalwhan claimed that the inclusion was not reasonably justifiable based on the aims of the SoE.
“The core problem—violent crime fuelled by gang activity and armed confrontations—requires focused, targeted measures, rather than the broad criminalisation of minor public order breaches,” he said.
Ramkhalwhan gave the parties until next Monday to respond before he files a case on his client’s behalf.
