Is There an Elective Dictatorship in T&T?

"All government is a conspiracy. Each governmental conspiracy has a constitution as its alibi." Those were the opening lines to an editorial published in the Cambridge Law Journal in April 1979, written by Professor Emeritus Philip Allott. The purpose of the piece was meant to discuss which of the two held a higher power: the Court or the Parliament. While the conclusion definitively proves that the Parliament is in fact sovereign, to a point just short of being an "elective dictatorship" however, there is more than enough historical evidence provided to clearly demonstrate the court's role in ensuring that no Act of Parliament comes into conflict with the Constitutional Rights of any citizen. If ever there was to be a revision of this article, that was extended to cover the legislatures of the Commonwealth as well, I am certain that the matter involving Dr. Roodal Moonilal would summarily be mentioned and reviewed in that editorial based on the historical significance it now holds for our country.

Possibly the most compelling of the cases listed in the article, and the most analogous to the Moonilal debate, is one involving a ruling handed down by Sir Edward Coke in 1610 in the Court of Common Pleas. The case involved Dr. Thomas Bonham who had been practicing medicine in a private capacity despite being refused the necessary qualifications to do so by the Royal College of Physicians. After ignoring fines and a court order, Dr. Bonham was summarily arrested and later imprisoned by the Royal College. Upon his release, Dr. Bonham sued for false imprisonment, and it was that case which prompted the now legendary ruling of Sir Coke in the matter. Upon conferring with Sir Thomas Fleming, who sat in the case as Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, Sir Coke ruled that the College cannot be a judge in a case to which it is a party. Sir Coke then stated bluntly:

"And it appears in our books, that in many cases the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void"

The issue raised by both Sir Coke and Dr. Moonilal is one that the PNM desperately attempted to disregard and obscure during the debate in the House yesterday, but it is one that we as an adolescent society need to discuss. Because the structure of the Parliament is one which favors the ruling party at all times, and as such is almost incapable of objectively adjudicating their own affairs. Imagine if suddenly we allowed the guards and inmates at the prison on Carrera Island to convene their own judiciary to tend to matters on the island, because they were removed from the mainland. There would always be a prejudice to one side based on the partisanship of the community residing on the island. But yet that is what we allow our Parliamentarians to do in one of the highest offices in the land. 

The maximalist view of Sir Coke's ruling was that "Coke was enforcing a rule of higher law deemed by him to be binding on Parliament and the ordinary courts alike". While this comment was subsequently replaced in the UK by more recent verdicts however, the opinions presented still resonate and influence lawmakers to this day. Whatever your opinion of Dr. Moonilal and his statement maybe, the points raised by him both in the courts and in the House debate are still valid and require further deliberation. As the PNM flatly rejected the notion, it may take a change in regime for this opportunity to be presented again. But again, this proves why Constitutional change is necessary in T&T to prevent tyranny from creeping into our legislature or judiciary. 

Best regards,

Ravi Balgobin Maharaj