By Garwin Davis, Assistant News Editor
Seaga
PRIME MINISTER P.J. Patterson should think less about the political fortunes of the People's National Party (PNP) and more about what's good for the people of Jamaica, Opposition leader Edward Seaga said.
According to Mr. Seaga, it would be an unpardonable act of arrogance if the Government should use its slim majority in Parliament to deny the Jamaican people the chance to decide whether to replace the British based Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
"In my term as Prime Minister I took many decisions that were unfavourable to my party but which I knew were in the best interest...were important to the survival of the country," Mr. Seaga said. "It should not be that the Prime Minister is afraid to lose out in a referendum...it should be about giving the people the opportunity to choose its final court of appeal...to allow them to choose the type of justice they want...this is a fundamental right."
The House is expected to conclude its debate and possibly vote on the proposed CCJ on Tuesday. The Senate two weeks ago in a vote of 11-6 voted in favour of having it implemented. Asked whether it wasn't understandable that an unpopular Government would be wary of going to the people for fear of being embarrassed, Mr. Seaga said "It all boils down to whether you want to be Prime Minister for the country or simply the leader of your own party."
Pressed to elaborate, he continued: "It depends on whether you are a Government that acts only in terms of what a political objective dictates or whether you are in Government to do what the country requires. In other words are you merely a politician instead of a statesman. If you are at the level of Prime Minister and leading the country, you can't be there purely as party leader...you have to be Prime Minister. This doesn't mean being head of the PNP...it means being Prime Minister for everybody regardless of party affiliation. You must do what is right for the country."
But even if it means something which could wound you politically? "But then you also have to look at the fact that by depriving the people of a voice in something as fundamental as this is a serious and grievous misjudgement," Mr. Seaga added.
The Government has been pushing the establishment of the CCJ as the final step which would complete the sovereignty of Caribbean islands. In doing so it has also argued that "the British Law Lords" would like nothing better than to relieve the Privy Council "of the burden" of having to hear cases from the Caribbean islands. During the CCJ debate in the Senate, several Government Senators, citing the new visa requirements as an example, again reiterated the point that the Privy Council was begging for a reprieve. Asked about this, Mr. Seaga did not mince his words.
"That lie was exposed... and it is a lie," he said. "It was exposed from in the debate in February 2000 when the Prime Minister left here to go sign the first instrument in regards to the Court of Appeal. There was a resolution at the time to give him the power to say see I have the backing. He raised the argument at the time that the highest authorities in Britain did not wish the Privy Council to continue hearing appeals from Jamaica and other Caribbean territories. Fortunately we were able to get statements from the Privy Council saying there is no such thing...that absolutely is not the case...that they are ready to participate with us for as long as we wish."
Mr. Patterson told Parliament three years ago that Jamaica and other Caribbean nations ran the risk of being "kicked out" by the Privy Council if they did not voluntary leave.
Asked whether the Prime Minister's reaction to the Privy Council's ruling in the Pratt and Morgan case weakened the credibility argument for the CCJ, Mr. Seaga said "absolutely. The Privy Council's ruling was based on the fact that a person should not be on death row for more than five years but the Prime Minister did not say that. Because the ruling was not to his liking he used that as justification to say...see people of Jamaica, you have expressed a great preference for hanging but the British court is standing in the way. Get rid of this court and give us a court which will do our bidding. That is being dishonest...you don't do that. You don't want a court that will do your bidding - you want a court to do what is right."
Speaking at the 56th Annual Conference of the People's National Party on September 18, 1994, Mr. Patterson, reacting to the Privy Council's decision to commute the death sentences in the Pratt and Morgan case said: "This Government has taken the decision that there are appropriate cases of capital homicide where the death sentence must be the punishment and the final result. I am not going to allow any group, anywhere, under the guise of judicial review, to make decisions that take policy decisions on social matters that are the prerogative of Jamaica as a sovereign and independent country."
