WITH THE signing of the agreement in Barbados yesterday setting in motion the process to establish the Caribbean Court of Justice the opposition to it has taken new directions.
Opposition Leader Edward Seaga in a television broadcast Tuesday night drew attention to potential constitutional hurdles. He cited Sections 100 and 106 of the Constitution, which provide that the judges of our Supreme Court and Court of Appeal can only be removed with the concurrence of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council in London. This is a protection given to our judges, and by extension, to all Jamaicans, and it is entrenched in the Constitution. This means that the protection cannot be taken away without a referendum, unless the Opposition acquiesces.
The Government has said that it is not constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum on the issue of abolition of the Privy Council, and will not do so until after the infrastructure and organisation of the new Court have been put in place. This seems to ignore the provisions of Sections 100 and 106. For if the Government removes the right of recourse to the Privy Council of ordinary Jamaicans, by a simple majority in Parliament, whilst leaving it in place in relation to Judges it would be setting up an untenable two-tier system.
The Government's case for abolition of the Privy Council is based on the suggestion that it is remote and, therefore, inaccessible to the vast majority of Jamaicans. This of course is an ideal platform for party political posturing.
Yesterday's street protests by the JLP therefore kicks off the activism phase of the Privy Council debate; and this no doubt will be carried on in the upcoming by-election contest in Northeast St. Ann. Despite early protestations to the contrary, politics will play a part.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
