Dear Editor,
This is in reference to `Jamaica to abolish appeals to Privy Council this Year’ (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2012/news/stories/05/10/jamaica-to-abolish-appeals-to-privy-council-this-year/) (SN May 11).
A previous effort by Jamaica’s government (under Prime Minister PJ Patterson of the PNP) to replace the Privy Council was declared unconstitutional because the correct procedures were not followed. Prime Minister Portia Simpson (PNP) also tried last time when she was PM to break judicial links with the Privy Council but failed because the then opposition JLP refused to back the initiative.
Shortly thereafter, the JLP, under Bruce Golding, unseated Simpson and the CCJ matter became a non-issue for five years until Simpson was swept back into office six months ago. Simpson is once again advocating a replacement of the Privy Council. The JLP, under its new leader, has not stated whether it will back her planned initiative.
Popular opinion, according to polls, is against the CCJ being the final
court of appeal. Simpson is against a referendum fearing a humiliating
defeat. Her CARICOM colleague, Kamla Persad Bissessar, also plans to replace the Privy Council with the CCJ (only for criminal cases). Portia appealed to Kamla to support the CCJ and she has acquiesced against the position of her colleagues in government. Like Portia, Kamla is against a referendum although only a few months ago she said she would put the matter up for a vote by the population. Popular opinion in Trinidad is overwhelmingly against the CCJ and it will fail in a referendum. The COP, a coalition partner of Kamla’s government, wants a referendum on the matter but she insists there will be no referendum. Just how many want the CCJ cannot be known unless a referendum is held. The leaders of the states should acquiesce to holding a referendum on the matter.
People throughout the region simply don’t have faith in the CCJ or
national institutions because the state has failed them so often and in so many areas since independence some fifty years ago. They don’t trust the state’s relationship with the judicial branch and prefer an outside arbiter far removed from control by the regional governments.
It should be noted that the argument for the CCJ is not made in terms of
faith in local institutions like the local court but couched in
anti-imperialist rhetoric and national pride – we are independent and should have our own court. Those who don’t want the CCJ are harshly described as unpatriotic. Yet many of those in favour of the CCJ would prefer to live in England rather than in the region.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
