The CCJ debate in the Senate
is in full swing: lots of distractions, drama, and rhetoric but woefully devoid
of substance.
We have expressed our
discomfort with the decision of Jamaica’s final appellate resting solely on the
vote of one Opposition Senator “exercising his conscience” and being anxious to
be on “the right side of history”.
One of the key elements is
the role of the citizens (not their elected representatives or their appointed agents)
in the making of this decision. On strict Constitutional terms there is none.
The Constitutionalist:
The PNP Government has
decided to replace the Privy Council with the CCJ as Jamaica’s final appellate
court
The severing of ties with the
Privy Council requires only a simple majority in both Houses. The government of
the day has such a majority so that is a relatively simple exercise.
Both our Supreme Court and
our local Court of Appeal are “entrenched”.
The UK- based Privy Council
has stipulated that the replacement of the Privy Council (which was not
entrenched in our Constitution) should enjoy the same level of protection (read
entrenchment) as our Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
The entrenchment of its
replacement—the CCJ or our local final appellate court ----- requires the 2/3
majority in the case of the plainly “entrenched” plus a referendum for the
“deeply entrenched” in addition to certain specified time periods.
The PNP Government is not
into “deeply entrenchment” but mere “entrenchment” as stipulated by the UK- based Privy Council.
Should citizens have a
say?
There is the view that to put
such a “sensitive” matter to the public would expose the Judicial system to the
vagaries ( and vulgarity ) of politics. Somehow this would “politicize” the
matter—a somewhat dishonourable and ignoble exercise.
“We commit to a Constitution that is truly
grounded in the will of the Jamaican .
people and pledge that, as soon as
possible after the General Election, we will
seek consensus to pass the legislation
required to achieve the main elements of
constitutional reform that have so far been
agreed.
These include:
•
A Jamaican Republic headed by a
Jamaican
•
Substitution of the Caribbean Court of
Justice for the UK-based Privy Council
and
•
An updated Charter of Rights to
reflect current thinking on human rights
Before taking effect, we will ensure that
these constitutional changes are
submitted to the Jamaican electorate for
their approval.”
[Source:
People’s National Party Manifesto 2007 Chapter 1; Constitutional Reform, p8]
That
commitment by the PNP represented a reversal of its position as highlighted by
the Jamaica Observer in an article “Now PNP says it will put CCJ to referendum”, Friday, August 10, 2007
“The People's National Party (PNP) has made an
about-turn in its position on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), promising
to put the issue to a plebiscite within the next five years as part of other
proposed changes to the Constitution.
The commitment is outlined in the ruling party's
manifesto which it launched last night at The Courtleigh Auditorium in New
Kingston.”
[their emphasis]
[their emphasis]
This
commitment was given by a PNP government now headed by Party leader and Prime
Minister, Portia Simpson-Miller and represents a departure from the stance
taken by the PNP government under former Prime Minister PJ Patterson who, “had stoutly
resisted calls by the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and rights groups
for the CCJ to be put to a referendum.”[emphasis added]
It
can be argued that the commitment was conditional on the PNP being elected to
form the next government as the general elections were to be held on August
27, 2007. The PNP lost.
Some questions:
Some questions:
Did
the PNP Government “politicize” the issue by reversing its position and
including a commitment to involve the Jamaican electorate as soon as possible
after the General Elections?
Was
that a blatant vote catching exercise?
Was the substitution of the Caribbean Court of Justice for the UK-based Privy Council an agreed element of the constitutional reform?
What must be made of the fact that the PNP in its 2011 Manifesto seemed to revert to the original stance taken by PJ Patterson?
Was the substitution of the Caribbean Court of Justice for the UK-based Privy Council an agreed element of the constitutional reform?
What must be made of the fact that the PNP in its 2011 Manifesto seemed to revert to the original stance taken by PJ Patterson?
“We will also complete the long journey of de-linking from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as our final Court of Appeal and fully embracing the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice.”
[Source:
2011 Manifesto of the People’s National Party p39]
No mention of:
- the will of the Jamaican people;
- seeking consensus of that which has been agreed;
- submitting constitutional changes to the Jamaican electorate for their approval.
Is there any merit in the argument that the PNP, having "politicized" the issue in its 2007 Election Manifesto, sought to "de-politicize" the issue in its 2011 Election Manifesto?
Does any of this really matters as only a tiny portion of the electorate has read the Jamaican Constitution and/or any Election Manifesto?
Does any of this really matters as only a tiny portion of the electorate has read the Jamaican Constitution and/or any Election Manifesto?
Comments