THE EDITOR, Sir:
Last evening, I had the extreme good fortune of attending a brilliantly-organised and presented panel discussion on the issue of a need for a referendum on the establishment of the CCJ hosted by the group Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ). Unfortunately, due to another engagement I was unable to stay for the panellists' fielding of questions from the floor so I wish to use this medium to pose an open question. I apologise if a similar question was posed and answered at the event.
I must say that what spoiled an otherwise flawless panel was the fact that there were three pro-referendum panellists (not including the chairman) to one anti-referendum. This gave an unbalanced appearance to the otherwise erudite presentations. However, I must say that, the sole anti-referendum panellist, the Hon. David Coore, O.J., Q.C., acquitted himself quite admirably and almost swept all the other panellists before him. This is except for his point on the need to establish the Court before holding a referendum. The utility of such an approach was lost on most in attendance, including yours truly.
The panel discussion was held at the very commodious Stephanie Hall in Kingston, which testifies to the tremendous faith the organising committee had in the issue being mooted being of much interest to a large number of Jamaicans. While a fair number did arrive (in true Jamaican style, more than half-an-hour late) the hall was by no means bursting at the seams. This led me to ponder whether Jamaicans are suffering from over-exposure to this topic. Or, could it reflect the general lack of interest Jamaicans have in issues of their own governance.
Whatever the reason, the proponents of a referendum ought to bear this fact in mind when making calls for the holding of a referendum that will cost an estimated $350 million according to one panellist. Do Jamaicans care? The average Jamaican, I submit, sees very little difference between the Privy Council and the CCJ. To them, both bodies are distant from their realities because of cost or a conscious belief that they will never fall into the hands of the justice system and therefore have no need to access such tribunals. There is also the possibility of a general lack of understanding among the populace of the issues at stake.
To my mind, since the politicians we elected to resolve such thorny issues are most au fait with the nuances of the discourse on the CCJ, then I propose a compromise to a referendum.
Is it possible for the Parliament to adopt a special measure requiring a special majority vote on the issue of the CCJ thus obviating the need for a referendum, which, for all intents and purposes, will be disruptive of our already poor productivity?
I am, etc.,
MAURICE TOMLINSON
1st Year Student
Norman Manley Law School
