JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, July 5, 2025

Interrogating Jamaica’s avoidance of the CCJ

by

Prof Hamid Ghany
391 days ago
20240609
Political scientist Prof Hamid Ghany

Political scientist Prof Hamid Ghany

Ap­pear­ing on the CVM TV show “CVM at Sun­rise” in Ja­maica on May 20 in­stant, Prime Min­is­ter An­drew Hol­ness told the hosts, Yen­di Phillips and Den­nis Brooks, that his Ja­maica Labour Par­ty (JLP) Gov­ern­ment holds the view that “our fi­nal court should be a Ja­maican fi­nal court.”

In am­pli­fy­ing his point of view, he said, “The peo­ple should have a say; that’s num­ber one for us. And sec­ond­ly, if we are hav­ing a fi­nal court to be repa­tri­at­ed, it shouldn’t go to Port-of-Spain; it should come to Kingston. That has been our po­si­tion.”

In drop­ping this con­sti­tu­tion­al bomb­shell the day be­fore his Gov­ern­ment pub­lished the “Re­port of the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Re­form Com­mit­tee on the Tran­si­tion to the Re­pub­lic of Ja­maica and Oth­er Mat­ters” re­vealed that he was tak­ing a po­si­tion on the CCJ is­sue be­fore the pub­li­ca­tion of the re­port on May 21. There was di­vi­sion in­side the com­mit­tee as three peo­ple from the 15-mem­ber com­mit­tee did not sign the re­port, name­ly the two op­po­si­tion mem­bers, Sen­a­tor Don­na Scott-Mot­t­ley and An­tho­ny Hyl­ton.

At­tor­ney Hugh Small al­so did not sign the re­port. Last week, I high­light­ed the quote from the Ex­ec­u­tive Sum­ma­ry of the Re­port as it re­lat­ed to Ja­maica’s fi­nal ap­pel­late court. How­ev­er, the ac­tu­al com­men­tary in the body of the re­port throws more light on the Gov­ern­ment’s re­luc­tance to em­brace the CCJ.

Un­der the head­ing in para­graph 12 en­ti­tled “The Is­sue of the Fi­nal Ap­pel­late Court,” the re­port read as fol­lows: “12.1 There have been con­sid­er­able dis­cus­sions on the ques­tion of whether Ja­maica should, at this time, abol­ish ap­peals to the Ju­di­cial Com­mit­tee of the Privy Coun­cil (JCPC) and sub­sti­tute the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice (CCJ) as its fi­nal ap­pel­late court. Such a change is un­like­ly to be achieved un­less the two (2) po­lit­i­cal par­ties rep­re­sent­ed in Par­lia­ment are in sup­port.”

Un­like oth­er pro­pos­als in this re­port, where­by the com­mit­tee over­ruled the po­si­tions of civ­il so­ci­ety on var­i­ous is­sues, the com­mit­tee ex­pressed am­biva­lence on this one. Nowhere in the re­port was there any men­tion of the po­si­tion tak­en by the Prime Min­is­ter in his break­fast tele­vi­sion in­ter­view.

The ad­vo­ca­cy of Ja­maican na­tion­al­ism as the ba­sis for not mak­ing a de­ci­sion on the re­moval of the JCPC and re­plac­ing it with the CCJ is a po­lit­i­cal po­si­tion of the Gov­ern­ment and not the com­mit­tee.

Para­graph 12.2 of the re­port reads as fol­lows: “12.2 At the com­mence­ment of its work, the CRC un­der­stood the Gov­ern­ment’s po­si­tion to be that the is­sue of the fi­nal court would be con­sid­ered at a lat­er stage while the Op­po­si­tion was press­ing for it to be in­clud­ed in the first phase of the work.”

It is clear that de­lay­ing the con­sid­er­a­tion of the CCJ telegraphed op­po­si­tion to the pro­pos­al. The Prime Min­is­ter’s tele­vi­sion in­ter­view served to con­firm that with his com­ment, which re­called shades of the 1961 Ja­maican ref­er­en­dum on whether Ja­maica should ac­cede to get­ting its in­de­pen­dence un­der the um­brel­la of the West In­di­an Fed­er­a­tion or whether it should walk alone. The elec­torate chose the lat­ter.

Ac­cord­ing to para­graph 12.3 of the re­port, which ad­dressed the sit­u­a­tion at the com­mence­ment of the com­mit­tee’s work, the fol­low­ing is quot­ed: “12.3 Since then, the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion has in­di­cat­ed on a po­lit­i­cal plat­form that he will not sup­port the re­form if it ex­cludes a de­ter­mi­na­tion of the fi­nal Court at this time. The po­si­tion of Gov­ern­ment re­mains that it should be dealt with at a lat­er stage and that the mat­ter be ful­ly de­bat­ed in the pub­lic sphere.”

This was the para­graph where the is­sue of the court be­ing lo­cat­ed in Kingston and not Port-of-Spain should have been dis­cussed. The Prime Min­is­ter put his own spin on the is­sue in his tele­vi­sion ap­pear­ance the day be­fore the pub­li­ca­tion of the re­port.

In­deed, the CRC formed the view that the con­flict­ing po­si­tions of the Gov­ern­ment and the Op­po­si­tion pose a se­ri­ous risk to the suc­cess of the re­form work. The com­mit­tee con­clud­ed as fol­lows: “12.5 As a way of help­ing to re­solve the dilem­ma, the CRC con­sid­ered whether the lead­ers would as­sist in build­ing con­sen­sus and al­so, if there is no con­sen­sus, whether the is­sue of the fi­nal court should be placed on the ref­er­en­dum bal­lot.”

The com­mit­tee passed the CCJ chal­ice and re­fused to drink from it. The ques­tion now is whether Prime Min­is­ter Hol­ness has poi­soned it with his break­fast com­ments. 

Prof Hamid Ghany is a Pro­fes­sor of Con­sti­tu­tion­al Af­fairs and Par­lia­men­tary Stud­ies at The Uni­ver­si­ty of the West In­dies (UWI). He was al­so ap­point­ed an Hon­orary Pro­fes­sor of The UWI up­on his re­tire­ment in Oc­to­ber 2021. He con­tin­ues his re­search and pub­li­ca­tions and al­so does some teach­ing at The UWI. 

 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored