Letter of the Day | Investor confidence and the case for the CCJ
Published:Saturday | February 7, 2026 | 12:06 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
The views expressed by A. J. Nicholson in his letter to the editor on Jamaica’s continued reliance on the Privy Council as its final appellate court raise serious and timely questions that deserve national attention. The government’s claim that retention of the Privy Council enhances Jamaica’s attractiveness to foreign investors has been repeatedly asserted but never convincingly substantiated. In the absence of clear evidence, such declarations risk appearing more ideological than practical.
It is entirely reasonable to question, as Nicholson does, what empirical basis exists for the belief that would-be investors view the Privy Council as a significant advantage. Jamaica is not operating in a vacuum. More than 50 former British colonies once shared this judicial arrangement, yet the overwhelming majority have since transitioned to indigenous or regional final courts. Many of these countries have continued to attract and retain foreign direct investment without difficulty. Investors are well aware of this global trend and are unlikely to be swayed by nostalgic attachments to colonial-era institutions.
Modern investors are among the most informed participants in global affairs. Their due diligence extends well beyond promotional speeches and includes deep assessments of governance, judicial access, political stability, and social equity. They know that, in practical terms, access to the Privy Council has historically been limited to Jamaicans of considerable means. This reality undermines any suggestion that the system represents fairness, accessibility, or efficiency.
Equally troubling is the government’s continued resistance to fully acceding to the Caribbean Court of Justice. The CCJ already serves as the final appellate court for several Caribbean states where foreign investors, including multinational corporations, have made significant and sustained investments. The notion that Jamaica’s investors would view the CCJ as inferior is therefore not supported by regional experience.
In today’s commercial environment, investors rarely expect to resolve disputes through prolonged litigation in a court of last resort. Arbitration, mediation, and negotiated settlements are far more common mechanisms. When court action becomes unavoidable, considerations such as cost, speed, and proximity matter greatly. Litigating in London is undeniably more expensive and less accessible than doing so within the Caribbean, making the Privy Council a less practical option for most parties.
The suggestion that Jamaica might contemplate creating its own final appellate court while simultaneously distancing itself from the CCJ further exposes the lack of coherence in the government’s position. At its core, this debate is not about symbolism or investor appeasement; it is about democratic entitlement and equal access to justice. A justice system that serves only the privileged cannot credibly be promoted as a national or economic advantage.
ROBERT DALLEY