THE EDITOR, Sir:I HAVE been accused by Beth Aub in a letter published on Saturday, the first instant under the headline 'Guidelines of history and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)', of engaging in 'deliberately misleading propaganda'. This accusation is in reference to my statement that the present Government was given a mandate to proceed with the substitution of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as our final Court of Appeal, by reason of the result of the general election held in October last year. My statement was based on the fact that both major political parties expressly dealt with this matter in their respective election manifestos.
The People's National Party Manifesto clearly and expressly stated that if elected the Government would proceed to make this substitution. The Jamaica Labour Party Manifesto stated with equal clarity that if elected they would retain the Privy Council. This is not propaganda invented by me. It is a fact which Ms. Aub can easily verify if she is interested in the truth.
SPECIAL LAW
Ms. Aub then goes on to dispute the need for a special law to be passed in order for a referendum to take place. She says, "I am curious to know why no such law had to be passed when we had our last referendum on whether or not to join the West Indies Federation". This sentence contains two egregious errors. Firstly, a law had to be passed and was in fact passed to enable the referendum on Federation to take place. It is Act 43 of 1960. Secondly, Jamaica had been a member of the West Indies Federation since its formal establishment in 1957.
The issue in the referendum was therefore not about joining the Federation but was, as set out in Section 3 of the Act, - "should Jamaica remain within the Federation?"
The preamble to it explains very clearly why it was necessary to have a referendum at that time. The preamble to the law after reciting that fact went on to say - "And whereas at that election it was not an issue whether or not the Government of Jamaica should seek the withdrawal of Jamaica from the Federation established under the (Federation) Order in Council 1957. And whereas doubts have now been expressed as to whether Jamaica should continue to be a member of the federation."
Two other historical facts should be borne in mind in this context. The first is that sometime after the general election of July 1959 the necessity arose for a by-election to be held in respect of the seat in the Federal Parliament for the parish of St. Thomas. On that occasion the Jamaica Labour Party, for the first time, announced that a decision had been taken by the party to seek the withdrawal of Jamaica from the Federation and hence it was not contesting the election.
The second fact is that prior to the passage of law 53 of 1960 Norman Manley obtained an undertaking from the British Government that if a referendum were held and the result was unfavourable to Jamaica remaining with the Federation they would nevertheless grant independence to Jamaica on its own.
SIMPLE MAJORITY
The issue as to the replacement of the Privy Council by the Caribbean Court of Justice is of an entirely different order. We have a constitution that expressly allocates the responsibility to Parliament by a simple majority. We have a Parliament whose members were elected on a choice of two platforms each of which specifically set out opposite positions in respect of this issue. The call for a referendum on this issue is not supported either by Constitutional provision or democratic practice. These are all incontrovertible facts, not propaganda.
Ms. Aub's final point is that there is some inconsistency in seeking to abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council while retaining the status of 'Queen's Counsel' in the legal profession and the honorary title of 'Privy Counsellor' bestowed on the Prime Ministers of some Commonwealth countries. This is ridiculous. The two titles referred to originate from the fact that Jamaica like a number of other Commonwealth countries is still nominally a monarchy. If and when Jamaica becomes a republic like Trinidad or Guyana these titles will automatically disappear.
For Ms. Aub's information both Canada and Australia abolished appeals to the Privy Council many years ago, but since they both retain the Queen as Head of State they also both retain the appellation 'Queen's Counsel' and their Prime Ministers receive the honorary title of 'Privy Counsellor'. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the other hand is a Court of Law established by act of the United Kingdom Parliament in 1833 and hears appeals from those Commonwealth Countries - whether republics or not - which chose to make use of it. Her rhetorical question - "Where else but in Jamaica?" is simply an expression of her ignorance of the subject.
I am, etc.,
DAVID H. COORE, O.J., Q.C.
Attorney-at-Law
Kingston 8
