SOCIAL activist and blogger Vishal Persad has launched a legal challenge against portions of the emergency powers regulations, 2024.
In a constitutional motion docketed to Justice Westmin James, Persad has argued that regulations 12(a), 14(1), and regulation 2 are unconstitutional, void, and not reasonably justifiable for addressing the public emergency.
Persad is represented by attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Kristy Mohan and Keron Ramkhalwhan.
They have argued that the specific regulations infringe on constitutional rights and are excessively broad in scope.
Persad contends that certain regulations under the state of emergency (SoE) are inconsistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution.
Persad’s lawsuit argues that the vague and undefined term “public order” could be misused to suppress fundamental freedoms such as free speech, assembly, and political expression.
The claim, filed on January 28, referred to the President’s statement, read in Parliament on January 13, and the Prime Minister’s during the debate for a three-month extension of the state of emergency (SoE).
The SoE was declared on December 30, to target violent crime and gang-related shootings, yet Persad contends, the impugned regulations could extend far beyond this purpose. Persad's attorneys argue that the regulations are overly broad and grant unchecked powers to law enforcement, creating risks of arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention.
The claim contends neither the President’s official statement nor parliamentary debates referenced threats to public order as a justification for the SoE. Instead, it said Dr Rowley noted the emergency was laser-focused on curbing gang violence and high-powered firearms use.
Persad is questioning why the regulations contain sweeping provisions criminalising speech or conduct deemed prejudicial to “public order,” which could include political gatherings, protests, or public statements critical of the government.
Persad argues that the police service has historically interpreted public order issues as relating to protests, political rallies, and public marches. This, he said, raises serious concerns about how these regulations could be applied, particularly in an election year, where political speech and demonstrations are expected to be vibrant and, at times, contentious.
One of the central issues raised in Persad’s claim is the risk of abuse owing to the vague language in the regulations.
“The risk of a vague emergency power that police officers and/or other persons responsible for enforcing these regulations can use and apply arbitrarily is too significant. This risk is exacerbated because the regulations provide executive detention with restricted/ delayed access to judicial determination.”
The lawsuit, which followed a pre-action letter on January 1, said under regulation 14 individuals might be detained without a warrant for up to 48 hours, with potential extensions of up to seven days, and with restricted access to bail or habeas
