Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

The re­moval of the con­tro­ver­sial “sav­ings” clause from the Con­sti­tu­tion was one of the rec­om­men­da­tions of a con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form com­mit­tee ap­point­ed dur­ing the tenure of for­mer prime min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley. 

At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Camille Robin­son-Reg­is made the state­ment yes­ter­day as she sought to re­spond to a news­pa­per ed­i­to­r­i­al call­ing for the change.

Stat­ing that the Gov­ern­ment was com­mit­ted to con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form, Robin­son-Reg­is quot­ed the rec­om­men­da­tions pre­sent­ed by the Na­tion­al Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mit­tee on Con­sti­tu­tion­al Re­form in Ju­ly 2024. 

“Af­ter 60 years of ex­pe­ri­ence with the colo­nial-era laws, there would seem to be no ba­sis or jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the re­ten­tion of the sav­ings or ex­ist­ing laws clause, and it should be re­moved as many have pro­posed,” the com­mit­tee’s re­port stat­ed. 

“This would mean that colo­nial-era laws may be chal­lenged for in­fring­ing fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms and de­clared un­con­sti­tu­tion­al,” it added. 

Un­der Sec­tion 6 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, the clause shields colo­nial-era laws that in­fringe on fun­da­men­tal rights and were passed be­fore the coun­try gained in­de­pen­dence in 1962 and be­came a re­pub­lic in 1976, pre­vent­ing them from be­ing legal­ly chal­lenged.

Amend­ments to saved laws are valid on­ly if they do not go be­yond the pre­vi­ous in­fringe­ments on rights.

Saved laws are al­so shield­ed from leg­isla­tive amend­ments and mod­i­fi­ca­tions that ex­ceed pre­vi­ous rights in­fringe­ments un­less they (the changes) are rea­son­ably jus­ti­fi­able or passed by a spe­cial par­lia­men­tary ma­jor­i­ty. 

Robin­son-Reg­is not­ed that a two-third vote in both hous­es of Par­lia­ment is re­quired to re­move the pro­vi­sion. She point­ed out that on­ly two po­lit­i­cal par­ties have ob­tained the nec­es­sary ma­jor­i­ty since the coun­try be­came a re­pub­lic in 1976. 

“Since 1976, on­ly the NAR 33 and UNC 29 have achieved such a ma­jor­i­ty,” she said. 

Robin­son-Reg­is said that the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment Gov­ern­ment would con­tin­ue to ad­vo­cate for the re­form de­spite not cur­rent­ly hav­ing the re­quired ma­jor­i­ty to do so on its own. 

Last week, the Law As­so­ci­a­tion of T&T is­sued a press re­lease call­ing for the re­moval of the clause. 

The as­so­ci­a­tion not­ed that the ap­pli­ca­tion of the clause was most re­cent­ly con­sid­ered by the Court of Ap­peal when it weighed in on an ap­peal over the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of this coun­try’s ho­mo­pho­bic bug­gery and se­ri­ous in­de­cen­cy laws. 

It stat­ed that it had con­sis­tent­ly ad­vo­cat­ed for the change in­clud­ing in its re­cent sub­mis­sions be­fore the Na­tion­al Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mit­tee on Con­sti­tu­tion­al Re­form. 

“Our da­ta shows that 54 per cent of our mem­ber­ship agrees that the sav­ings clause should be abol­ished, while 65 per cent be­lieve that Sec­tion 4 of the Con­sti­tu­tion should be amend­ed to in­clude pro­tec­tion from dis­crim­i­na­tion based on gen­der and sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion,” it said. 

Robin­son-Reg­is al­so ad­dressed long-stand­ing calls to re­place the Unit­ed King­dom-based Privy Coun­cil with the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice (CCJ) as this coun­try’s fi­nal ap­pel­late court. 

She not­ed that while the CCJ is head­quar­tered in Port-of-Spain, it is not di­rect­ly fund­ed by the T&T Gov­ern­ment, as its op­er­a­tions are fi­nanced through an in­de­pen­dent trust fund, en­sur­ing its au­ton­o­my.

She added that this change re­quires a spe­cial par­lia­men­tary ma­jor­i­ty, which has not been achieved due to lack of sup­port from the Op­po­si­tion. Robin­son-Reg­is claimed that while Op­po­si­tion Leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar com­mit­ted to the change in 2012, she has since shift­ed her stance, now ad­vo­cat­ing for a ref­er­en­dum on the is­sue.