Letter of the Day | Provide full explanation on CCJ

THE EDITOR, Madam:

For the longest while, I have been trying to discover the justice that the Government considers will flow to Jamaicans in leading them to abandon the monarchy while they remain tied to the monarch’s court, the UK-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Government is relentless in their pursuit of that goal, even in the face of the following unchallengeable factors, among others:

1. Compared to delinking from the monarchy, transitioning from the monarch’s court to the accessible regional final court will bring immeasurable long overdue benefit to all Jamaicans.

2. The constitutional amendment process for that transition is not burdensome – requiring a special vote in each House – unlike the time-consuming challenges of the costly exercise required to leave the monarchy, paving the way for Jamaica to become a republic.

3. Over multiple generations, the wealthy alone have enjoyed ready access to the monarch’s Court, convicted murderers under penalty of death being the only exceptions.

4. Payment has already been fully met for all Jamaicans – regardless of economic circumstance and status, as it should be – to experience the privilege of access, if necessary, to the affordable, globally commended, and most importantly, itinerant Caribbean Court of Justice.

5. With great respect, how could our government not regard it as being of the utmost urgency to rid our society of the situation in which client and attorney are abhorrently obliged to obtain travel visas in seeking audience before our final court, the monarch’s court?

A ministry was created and billions of taxpayers’ dollars expended and being provided in obstinate pursuit of the route that they have chosen without any discernible evidence or prospect of success.

The Government, discarding their crucial duty of accountability, have neglected to point to any advantage that their pursuit will bring.

The minister and her government colleagues, surely, could never expect support to be forthcoming for their unusual project without plausible and cogent reasoning being provided for the people to contemplate.

Or, is it that they consider that this process of such historic significance should be allowed to move along decidedly by diktat?

CLAYTON MORGAN

Attorney-at-Law