Dear Editor,
In ‘Antiguans will hold their referendum on the CCJ early next year’ (SN Jun 24) Mr Oscar Ramjeet, made several points. Unlike St Vincent and Grenada and soon Antigua, none of the four countries that acceded to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ever held a referendum on the matter. A referendum is the way to go, and I salute the government of Antigua for that move. The countries that held a referendum rejected the replacement of the Privy Council (PC) with the CCJ.
Guyana abolished appeals to the PC in 1970 after a fraudulent election in which the PNC claimed a magic two-thirds majority which it used to abolish the PC. The PNC did not ask the nation for a yes or no vote via a referendum.
While Trinidad, under the UNC government, championed the establishment of the CCJ, it made clear that a decision on its jurisdiction would only be entertained after a referendum. The PNM is opposed to a referendum arguing it should be done by parliament. Opinion polls showed voters rejecting the CCJ. No political party wants to champion a cause that will be rejected by voters, so the matter is dead until such time that the PNM gets a three quarters majority in parliament.
In Jamaica, both the ruling JLP and opposition PNP promised to replace the PC with the CCJ. But at various times, they stated they would hold referendums on the issue. However, opinion polls revealed that voters would reject the CCJ in a referendum. So, wisely, the politicians didn’t hold the vote.
The governments of Barbados, Dominica and Belize promised referendums that were never held. Majority opinions in all three states were against the CCJ, so the governments bypassed popular opinion and replaced the PC with the CCJ.
Antigua has done the smart thing by allowing its citizens to determine whether the CCJ should replace the PC as that nation’s final appellate court. Polls conducted years ago showed a large majority against such a move. We will know next year if opinions have changed. It will also be interesting to see which parties campaign for that cause. There is likely to be a lot of opposition. Tourist nations, especially those that get a large number of visitors from the UK, like to hang on to the aprons of Britain (with the Queen as head of state and the PC) for stability. People tend to have greater faith in the PC as an arbiter of justice because they feel there would be no political interference in judicial matters.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram