By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

It was a state act performed by the judicial arm of state. The right of an individual toliberty and the right not to be deprived thereof save by due process of law existed beforethe commencement of the constitution but its enrichment as constitutional rights gave it anew status not only by reasons of the formalities required for its abrogation ofabridgement but also as a result of the creation by section 6 of the constitution of a newright of redress in respect of contravention which is primarily intended to be invoked incases of contravention by the state as opposed to that by private individuals. Section 6 ofthe constitution owes is origin to Article 5 (5) of the European convention on humanrights; see also Attorney-General v. Antigua Times [1976] A.C 16. note that the rightredress in section 6 relates expressly to breaches of section 1 and 2 of the constitution.Habeas Corpus only lies if the imprisonment was an act of the executive: it does not lieagainst the Governor where the imprisonment was pursuant to a judge’s order.Ramsahoye S.C. followed.Algernon Wharton Q.C. and Clebert Brooks (both of the Trinidad and Tobago Bar) andGerald Davies for the respondent. Scott J. was right that he has no jurisdiction toentertain the appellant’s motion. Section 6 (1) of the Constitution does not enable aperson in pursuit of the rights and freedoms declare by section 1 and 2 of the Constitutionto apply for redress to a judge of the High Court form any ruling or decision of the HighCourt. To read section 6 in a such a wide way in contrary to the established system ofjustice and to the progressive steps available to the citizen and pursuit of his legal rightsand the rights of appeal provided for by the Judicature Act 1962.On authority the Court should construe a statute away form its too literal terms to avoidabsurdity. Confusion or unreasonableness and should have due respect for theconsequences such construction must not offend the common sense, object or intention ofthe statute. To construe section 6 narrowly would not deprive the subject of his right topursue his constitutional right: he has a statutory right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Ifa motion under section 6 were founded on an alleged contravention of section 1 or 2 ofthe Constitution by the Court of Appeal Judicial Committee ofRooks v. Bernard [1964] A.C. 1129, [1964] 2 W.L.R. 269, [1964] 1 All Sirros v. Moore[1975] Q.B. 118, [1974] 3 W.L.R 459; [1975] 3 All E.R. 776, C.A.Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] A.C 462, hi. (E057