By Vernon Daley and Lynford Simpson, Staff ReportersA LIVELY sitting of the House of Representatives ended last night with the Government using its majority to approve a resolution, clearing the path for Jamaica to ratify the agreement establishing the controversial Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
After five hours of contentious debate, 32 government MPs voted in favour of the resolution while 24 opposition members voted against. Dr. St. Aubyn Barlett, JLP, abstained; his brother Edmund Bartlett, was absent.
Ratification of the agreement will not bring the CCJ into being but it signals the administration's commitment to introduce the necessary legislation to give life to the court.
Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, in closing the debate on the resolution, again rejected calls for a referendum to determine whether to replace the UK-based Privy Council with the CCJ, as Jamaica's final court of appeal. Pointing out that the 1962 Constitution requires only a simple majority vote to abolish the Privy Council, Mr. Patterson insisted that he had no intention of going beyond that requirement.
"We are not going to change something that can be done by a simple majority in Parliament into what is equivalent to an entrenched provision that was never intended by the founding fathers," the Prime Minister said.
According to Mr. Patterson, the people of Jamaican gave his Government the mandate to proceed with the CCJ, when they returned it to power in last year's general election.
Several groups, including the Jamaican Bar Association, have criticised the Government's stance on a referendum, arguing that the administration has a duty to consult the people before abolishing their right to appeal to the Privy Council.
The opposition Jamaica Labour Party has also called for a referendum on the CCJ and has served notice that a JLP government would withdraw from the court if it is established by simple majority vote.
Edward Seaga, Leader of the Opposition, yesterday moved an amendment to the resolution, seeking to have the Government hold a referendum on the court.
After several Opposition members had spoken on the amendment, Deputy Speaker O.T. Williams went straight to the vote. Many of the Government MPs were outside the chamber at the time and the Opposition, which had the larger numbers inside out-voted the Government. However, it turned out that Opposition member, Abe Dabdoub had called for a divide vote.
A divide vote would allow the parliamentary records to reflect how individual members voted.
Confusion reigned for 30 minutes as Opposition member Mike Henry insisted that the Hansard documents be consulted to verify who had called for the divide. It was initially felt that Mr. Williams had called for the divide and the Opposition charged he had no authority to do so. In fact, Mr. Williams insisted he had called for the divide after he heard the call from the Government benches.
The Deputy Speaker subsequently ruled that the roll call be taken but this did not happen for 25 minutes as Mr. Henry stood his ground, insisting that the Hansard report be submitted.
"The integrity of the chair is in question," he shouted at the Deputy Speaker. "You can't call for a divide. Get Hansard or throw me out."
After much haggling, the roll call was taken and the Government, which had by then regained its majority in the chamber, defeated the resolution 32 to 25.
