THE EDITOR, Sir:YOUR CONTRIBUTOR Mr. Dennie Quill in his column on Friday, June 23, headed 'A lament for the CCJ,' makes the point that the expenditure of US$100 million to establish and maintain the Caribbean court of Justice is too much to spend on a Court that will only be dealing with trade disputes between CARICOM members on trade matters and appeals from the Courts of Appeal in Guyana and Barbados.
I entirely agree that this is obviously an unacceptable state of affairs. I must take issue with him, however, with respect to his views as to who is to blame for this situation and where the remedy is to be found.
He first of all blames the Government of Jamaica and presumably the other Caribbean governments, for acting with "almighty haste" in establishing the court and then not taking the necessary steps to ensure that it becomes the final court of appeal for all the Caribbean countries. These criticisms of the Government are grossly unfair.
"ALMIGHTY HASTE"
Let us deal first of all with the charge of "almighty haste." The proposal to establish a Caribbean court as a final court of appeal for CARICOM countries was first discussed by the independent states of CARICOM in 1970. It was at that time recommended to the Jamaican people by then Prime Minister the Most Honourable Hugh Shearer. It was widely acclaimed and supported in principle at that time. In the years that followed, successive governments, of different political persuasions throughout the Caribbean, have accepted this objective.
The CARICOM secretariat, asso-ciations of attorneys, academics and other commentators have formulated, refined and fleshed out the project. In so far as Jamaica is concerned, this came to a head in 1988 when the Cabinet, presided over by the most Honourable Edward Seaga, officially approved the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final court of appeal for Jamaica. The treaty establishing the court and committing Jamaica to adopting it as our final court of appeal was eventually signed by the CARICOM countries on the 14th of February, 2001. It has therefore taken 31 years from the first acceptance in principle in 1970 to the formal binding treaty establishing the court. If Mr. Quill thinks that a process that has taken 31 years represents "almighty haste" then I wonder what he would consider dawdling.
At the time this treaty was signed, it was reasonable to assume, given the historical background referred to above, that this situation would enjoy if not unanimous, certainly a substantial consensus and widespread support throughout the region. This brings us to Mr. Quill's second and perhaps more serious criticism, namely, the delay that has now taken place in its full implementation.
VOICING OBJECTIONS
The fact is that no sooner was the treaty signed, than the political parties who found themselves sitting on the opposition benches in their respective parliaments began to voice objections and opposition to the court as the final court of appeal. This was presumably due to the fact that they began to see some political advantage to be gained by this change of position. In the general elections in Jamaica in 2002, the manifesto of the Jamaica Labour Party made their position clear. They were now in opposition to the substitution to the Caribbean Court of Justice for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. A similar shift took place in Trinidad which, in the immediate prelude to the treaty establishing the court, had been the most energetic and vociferous advocate for it.
The significance of these changes of posture lies in the nature of our respective constitutions which Mr. Quill seems to have overlooked. With the exception of Jamaica, and apart from Guyana which had previously abolished appeals to the Privy Council, the constitution of the other affected countries of CARICOM made the right of appeal to the Privy Council an entrenched provision of their constitutions.
This means in effect that the substitution of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) for the Privy Council as a final court of appeal cannot be accomplished without substantial voting support in parliament from the opposition members. In the case of Jamaica, although our constitution on the face of it did not entrench the right of appeal to the Privy Council, that court in the case of Edward Seaga vs the President of the Senate and the Attorney-General, ruled that legislation implementing the treaty establishing the CCJ as our final court of appeal was unconstitutional because it was not passed in Parliament with the support of the Opposition members.
The reality, therefore, is that it is not the governments of the Caribbean countries that are responsible for the delay in implementing the CCJ treaty. They all remain in complete commitment to the provisions of the treaty.
It is the opposition parties in some, if not all, of the CARICOM countries, with the commendable exception of Barbados, that are responsible
for frustrating the removal of this last vestige of colonial rule and substituting a regional institution at the apex of our judicial system. It is, therefore, to those entities that Mr. Quill's criticism and exhortation should be addressed.
I am, etc.,
DAVID COORE, O.J., Q.C.
Ministry of Justice
