By Trudy Simpson, Staff ReporterA DISCUSSION on Saturday, following a public lecture on whether the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a "hanging court", turned into a debate about the need for a referendum to decide whether to replace the British-based Privy Council as the final court of appeal for the region.
During the discussion at the Norman Manley Law School on the Mona campus of the University of the West Indies, voices rose, provoking murmurs among members of the audience, while A.J. Nicholson,Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, and Prime Minister Dr. Kenny Anthony of St. Lucia, explained their reasons for not holding a referendum on the issue.
Among Mr. Nicholson's reasons is that Government did not intend to disturb the consitutional arrangement which allows it to ratify the CCJ by way of a simple parliamentary majority. Also, he suggested that a referendum could be tainted by politics.
"If someone can show me a way for a referendum to be held in Jamaica on an issue and it is not politicised then I am more than willing to reconsider my position," he said.
In addition, he said, "We cannot have a referendum on an institution that we do not control. We don't control it. The Privy Council is not ours," Mr. Nicholson stressed, in response to comments by Dr. Martin Aub of Transparency International (Jamaica).
Dr. Aub said the main CCJ issue was whether people trusted the justice system which, he said, was mostly accessed only when people have been criminally charged.
"We hear various arguments, each of which turns out to be not quite true. This is reinforced by the refusal of the Jamaican Government even to entertain the idea of a referendum," he said.
POSSIBLE EFFECTS THROUGHOUT CARIBBEAN
Dr. Anthony argued that countries were reluctant to hold referenda because the result in one Caribbean country could have an impact throughout the region.
Using as an example, the Bahamas, where Government came out on the wrong side on a referendum and subsequently lost power, Dr. Anthony said it could be polluted with other issues, which could render it ineffective. It would also lengthen the waiting process for the CCJ's establishment, Dr. Anthony said.
He said, "If we have to wait for each country of the Eastern Caribbean to complete its own constitutional process, then you might as well inaugurate the court in the year 2010. We have to make a start with those countries that were able to move on. I believe that there are some countries in the Caribbean which need the Court of Appeal."
Dr. Anthony argued that the time had long passed for the Caribbean to replace the Privy Council, which, he said, was often "mystified" by Caribbean legalities. Setting up the CCJ also meant really achieving independence and guaranteeing sovereignty, he said.
"The people of the region need to feel that when their Governments make a decision, the Governments have the collective will to implement that decision," he said.
Professor Trevor Munroe did not have a problem with sovereignty issues but argued that attention should be paid to the views of the public.
Recent polls, he said, had shown that while a majority of Jamaicans were in favour of the CCJ, an even bigger majority felt there should be an indicative referendum.
"We need to be very sensitive to why people believe an indicative referendum is the way to go," he said. He suggested setting a time frame for the entrenchment of certain aspects of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
