Supreme Court rules government's use of rolling SOEs unconstitutional

 

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the People's National Party in its challenge of the government's continued use of States of Public Emergency.

 

The court on Friday morning determined that the action of the government was unconstitutional. 

 

The opposition's challenge had come in the context of what had been dubbed 'rolling' states of emergency.

 

At the time, the opposition had been refusing to support the extension of the states of emergency, so the government then began to impose the 'rolling' SOEs where a new state of emergency would start just after or shortly after a previous one had ended.

 

Notably, the government does not need the support of the opposition to impose a state of emergency initially for 14 days, but it does need opposition support to extend it past the 14 days.

 

The judge on Friday said that the government had not put forward any evidence to show that the circumstances of public emergency existed at the time when a number of States of Public Emergency had been declared.

 

She said the police evidence was that states of emergency were being used as a standard method of policing because other methods had not been working. She also suggested that the states of emergency had not been imposed for a proper purpose under the Constitution, and that the imposition with the restriction of constitutional rights that came with them was not proportionate in the circumstances.

 

The judge spoke about the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, saying that extends to the relationship between the executive and the legislature - meaning the legislature, i.e. Parliament and the support of the opposition, is necessary for the extension of the states of emergency. 

 

She said the way in which the government was declaring the new states of emergency right after or shortly after a previous one had ended was a method that was being used to circumvent the processes of the Constitution.

 

The judge therefore said that the proclamations made by the Governor General of a number of states of emergency between 2019 and 2023 were not made for proper purpose under the Constitution and was not demonstrated justified in a free and democratic society.

 

King's Counsel Michael Hylton, who appeared for People's National Party General Secretary Dr. Dayton Campbell in the matter, said the ruling is "signigicant just from a rule of law perspective, that the Constitution must be obeyed and must be followed". 

 

"It's important from a governance point of view. And as a practical matter, it should also guide the way the government goes forward both in relation to this issue and others," he told Radio Jamaica's Dionne Jackson Miller.