In recent weeks discussion has again arisen on the question, ‘Shall we have a CCJ or not?’ Much of it has been spurred by recent statements by the Prime Ministers of Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago. In these they have thrown new doubt on any possibility that their countries might subscribe in practice to the jurisdiction of the CCJ. In practice, because not too many years ago it was assumed that all the governments of the region having agreed to support the raising of funds on the capital markets by the CDB to support the functioning of the court, and to free it from the constrictions of delays and non-payments of contributions that plague most regional institutions including the Caribbean Community Secretariat itself, had put their money where their mouths were.
But in what any good banker would consider a rash of recklessness, some of our governments decided that even though they were committed to financing the support funds, they would not bother to use the institution; a conclusion about these governments on the part of the bankers which, indeed, any housewife would also come to.
Yet in recent years, even as major countries like Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago (which under Prime Minister Panday’s UNC government strenuously lobbied for the headquarters of the court), began to indicate that they were lukewarm, if not against, joining the institution, many others seemed to hold out hope that these hesitations were probably temporary roadblocks on the way to consolidating complete public assent in their countries. But Prime Minister Golding’s observation that Jamaica could well choose to have its own final Court of Appeal and that this issue would be resolved by referendum, and Prime Minister Persad Bissessar’s suggestion that Trinidad’s adherence could possibly involve a referendum, have thrown cold water on any hopes that delays were temporary.
In response Prime Minister Tillman Thomas, incoming Chairperson of the Community and himself a lawyer, has queried Golding’s reasons for his hesitancy. And in a veritable cri de coeur, Sir Shridath Ramphal took the opportunity in giving the Sir Archibald Nedd Memorial Lecture in Grenada, to describe the turning back on the CCJ in favour of the British Privy Council as “an act of abysmal contrariety.” He has argued that in the absence of both Jamaica and Trinidad “the demise of the court itself is not an improbable danger” and that “loss of the the CCJ will almost certainly frustrate progress on a Single Market and Economy.”
Some, including our political directorate, may well argue that Sir Shridath is crying wolf in order to get public pressure to force the recalcitrant countries to come to heel. But undoubtedly Sir Shridath, with all his diplomatic and political experience, will know well that single individuals outside the political arena cannot achieve such objectives by such means. But he would no doubt feel that recognition of that fact should not mean that he should silently see the ship sink, as he hears well the rumble of snide remarks and smirks from friends and allies, particularly in the United Kingdom, about the increasing display by West Indian politicians of their inability to finalise anything remotely involving some difficulty. It is no secret that refrains of this kind were well in evidence as the political directorate publicly quarrelled over the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiated with the European Union. But on this occasion, foreign observers will say, there is no external pressure to bring the procrastinators to heal.
Many would have thought that Prime Minister Bissessar, fresh from a substantial electoral victory would have had the ability and the political support to come to grips with the CCJ issue. She would be sensitive to what apparently made her predecessor Panday hesitate, this being the sense that the Indian community in Trinidad would not have a proper representation on the court. But, embroiled so quickly in swirl of unfortunate statements on regional and domestic matters, and more recently on embarrassing matters relating to public service appointments, she has chosen to throw no more hostages to fortune – in particular hostages which have little to do with the partisan battle at home, and keeping her young coalition together. And the PNM, having made its own commitment to the CCJ and met the UNC’s resistance, is hardly likely, with its preoccupations of internal reorganization, to push this issue.
Both Mrs Bissessar and Mr Golding will have in mind the recent effort to pursue constitutional reform through referendum by Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves in St Vincent. Golding will know that he has nothing to gain, in terms of support from his party’s membership, from forcing the issue, in spite of the fact that the opposition PNP supports the move to the CCJ. Some might well feel that he has thrown up the referendum issue as a way of diverting attention from calls which have recently been made for Jamaica to commit itself to the CCJ, and to gain legitimacy for his hesitancy from the aura, and indeed fear, which Bustamante’s referendum call on the West Indies Federation, still holds in Jamaica. For he knows that with the opposition in support, there really is no necessity for it at all.
In the midst of their domestic preoccupations, whether in Trinidad of holding the People’s Partnership together, or in Golding’s case, keeping his flag flying in the midst of the aftermath of the Dudus affair, dissing the CCJ would appear to them to be a useful diversion game to play. We can understand Sir Shridath’s apparent despair.
