The High Court, on Friday, dismissed an application filed by the Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC)—which challenged several sections of the Police Act and the Trade Union Recognition Act—with Justice Gino Persaud upholding the constitutionality of the legislative provisions.

According to a release from the Attorney-General (AG) Chambers, Justice Persaud ruled that the provisions barring members from the Guyana Police Force (GPF) from trade union membership are justified under the Constitution, as they are essential in maintaining public order, defense, and safety.

In its application, the GTUC, which was represented by Attorney-at-Law Darren Wade, requested the Court to declare s. 46 of the Police Act, Cap. 16:01 and s. 2(2) of the Trade Union Recognition Act, Cap. 98:07, unconstitutional, arguing that these provisions violate their fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 147(1) of the Constitution.
Article 147(1) guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of assembly and association and to form or belong to trade unions or other organizations for the protection of their interests.

The judge agreed with the AG’s submissions, ruling that these restrictions, provided for by Article 147(4)(a) of the Constitution, are lawful and constitutional.

In his ruling, the judge stated, “In the present proceedings, the State has convincingly demonstrated that permitting officers to engage in industrial action or labour dispute would form a grave and tangible threat that would affect the effective functioning of the apparatus and machinery of the State […] a prohibition is not only reasonable but necessary in a democratic society for the preservation of public order, national defence and public safety.
“The State’s submissions underscore that police officers occupy a critical and non-substitutable role of upholding the rule of law, protecting life and property, and maintaining societal stability. Their participation in industrial actions could severely undermine public confidence, disrupt essential services, and endanger the very fabric of our constitutional democracy.”

The judge also noted that the police officers’ fundamental rights to associate with and belong to trade unions are not circumvented since, under Section 43 of the Police Act, members of the force have access to benefits and representation through the Police Association, which performs functions similar to those of a trade union.

Additionally, the applicant sought a declaration that the state had failed to pay salaries, benefits, and other emoluments to certain officers of GPF who were allegedly promoted on the 28th June, 2021. However, the applicant failed to establish that any such promotion was affected on that date.

The applicant further failed to produce any evidence demonstrating its legal authority to act on behalf of those officers.
Consequently, the judge ruled that the applicant did not have any legal standing to represent those persons or sufficient interest to seek such relief.

The AG and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, appeared in person on behalf of the Respondent, along with Gaitree Ramona Rookhum, Assistant Solicitor General, Ronetta Sargent-Prince, Principal Legal Advisor, and Omar Hoppie, State Counsel.

Costs were awarded to the Attorney General in the sum of $250,000.