Letter of the Day | Did Michael Manley get it right?

THE EDITOR, Madam:

There is a reflective question that arises, particularly in this Black History Month. Did former prime minister, Michael Manley, get it right in affirming that: “The enslavement of the body that endured till 1838 was nothing to the enslavement of the mind that endured since?”

With each passing day bewilderment grows ever stronger as a result of the persistent refusal of the present government to put forward any reason whatsoever for withholding their support from access to final justice being made available to our people, their employers, by leading Jamaica to delink from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and acceding fully to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

There is no escape from joining with others in constant lament concerning how a government of our own people, without any thought of accountability, can hold strongly such a position, even faced with the following patently incontestable set of circumstances:

No society can claim to be just, fair and equitable unless all of its citizens enjoy unimpeded access to all courts of law. The abiding principle that justice must be available to all constitutes a hallmark of proper democratic practice.

In the case of Independent Jamaica, near 200 years since Emancipation, only the wealthy have enjoyed the privilege of unhindered access to the London-based court of final appeal, with the vast majority of our people unjustly deprived.

Since 2005, Jamaica has been bound by treaty to accede to the appellate jurisdiction of the itinerant, accessible CCJ whose laudable operation has gained global commendation.

The Government has gone as far as placing obstacles in the way of Jamaica acceding to the CCJ, including insistence on an unrequired costly referendum exercise, and projection of the highly improbable establishment of a local final appellate court.

Creation of the regional final court which was farsightedly placed on the public policy agenda by a JLP-led government over half a century ago, serves five regional states, and not a single word of complaint or regret has ever been heard coming from the authorities in any of those territories. On the contrary!

What is it that could cause this government to be stubbornly and uncaringly unwilling to explain with clarity of purpose why they consider that it makes our people’s lives better for British judges in London, to remain our final justice arbiters rather than distinguished regional judges who will come to our doorstep to adjudicate upon our petitions?

Did the prescient former prime minister hit the nail on the head?

CLAYTON MORGAN

Attorney-at-Law