Jamaicans remain largely oblivious to last week's dramatic political developments in Trinidad and Tobago.
First, public protest drove Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar into a hurried repeal of a controversial Section 34 of the country's new, but in-limbo, Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act. Then Mrs Persad-Bissessar fired her justice minister, former High Court judge Herbert Volney, for allegedly misleading the Cabinet into an early promulgation of the now repealed section. Mr Volney countercharges that he has been thrown to the wolves.
Passed towards the end of 2011, it came into force on August 31, 2012, while the rest of the Act is scheduled for promulgation during the first quarter of 2013.
If Section 34 had remained in place, it would have allowed persons accused of other than a handful of specified crimes to avoid prosecution if a trial had not commenced 10 years from the date on which the offence was alleged to have occurred.
Critics of the government felt that this provision was to provide a legal loophole for two financiers of Mrs Persad-Bissessar's party, who were charged with corruption relating to an airport development project more than a decade ago. Their case remains subsumed in a haze of satellite legal battles, mostly instigated by themselves, including fighting extradition to the United States.
Section 34 may have been fuzzily thought through. But stripped of its political drama, the legislation more broadly offers Jamaica, this newspaper believes, a set of worthy ideas in the area of legal reform now on the table here.
The fundamental aim of the Trinidadian law was to fix something that Jamaicans often complain bitterly about - the backlog of cases (in Jamaica, numbering above 400,000) in the court and the slowness with which matters move through the system.
So, the legislation would eliminate preliminary inquiries for indictable offences before magistrates - something being studied by Jamaica's Parliament - moving to what are called sufficiency hearings before a judge - a master - in the High Court.
Largely, the master would review witness statements and other documentary evidence before deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out against an accused and whether he or she should be committed for trial.
The law also allows prosecutors, in the event of a discharge, having requested and reviewed the record of the proceedings, to apply to a judge for a warrant of arrest and order to put the person on trial.
What is significant, however, about the Trinidadian law is that it sets specific timelines to proceed with and complete various judicial actions. For instance, a prosecutor dissatisfied with the dismissal has 14 days to request the record of proceedings, the master has 28 days to provide it, then the prosecutor has a month to apply for the warrant of arrest.
Further, if the prosecutor fails to prefer an indictment in 12 months, an accused person can apply to a judge to discharge him or her, with a decision based on the circumstances of the case. Similarly, a master will be forced to discharge an accused 12 months after proceedings are instituted if he is not in a position to order that the person be put to trial.
Of course, any such provisions would have to be tweaked to fit Jamaica's specific circumstances and to ensure fairness and prevent abuse by brazen lawyers. Our hobbling court system has also trod on the rights of many accused to a trial in reasonable time because of prosecutors' refusal to drop cases.
Setting clear timelines for proceedings is one way to help hold the system to account.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: email@example.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.