By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE JUDICIAL Review Court yesterday dismissed claims brought by Leader of the Opposition Edward Seaga, the Jamaican Bar Association (JBA) and two other groups, challenging the constitutionality of Bills to establish the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
In striking out the claims, the court upheld a preliminary point taken by Michael Hylton, Q.C., solicitor-general, that the claims were premature because the Bills, while having been tabled in the Senate, had not reached the debating process, a usual practice by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, Mr. Justice Horace Marsh and Mrs. Justice Norma McIntosh, will give its reason in writing at a later date.
CLAIMANTS TO APPEAL
Mr. Seaga, the JBA, the Independent Jamaican Council of Human Rights and the lobby group Jamaicans for Justice, were seeking to have the Bills declared unconstitutional. The claimants contended that the CCJ would not be a permanent court like the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, which were enshrined in the Constitution of Jamaica.
The claimants will be appealing the court's ruling.
When the motion came up for hearing before the court on Tuesday, Mr. Hylton argued that there was no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims. He said any irregularity in the conduct of parliamentary business was a matter for Parliament and was not justifiable in the courts.
NO INTERVENTION FROM COURT
He argued further that the court did not generally intervene in the deliberate or legislative functions of Parliament because the role of the courts was to interpret and apply legislation that had been enacted by Parliament. Mr. Hylton referred to an affidavit by Minister of Justice and Attorney-General A. J. Nicholson, Q.C., in which he said the timetable for commencement of the hearing of appeals by the CCJ was such that it would not begin to hear appeals until sometime after the Bills were passed. Mr. Hylton said, in the circumstances, there would be ample time after the bills were passed for any constitutional challenges.
Attorney-at-law Dr. Lloyd Barnett, in opposing the application, had asked the court for permission to argue the substantive case along with the preliminary point raised. Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe told Dr. Barnett that it was the court's ruling that he should proceed to respond to the preliminary point raised. Dr. Barnett said it was unfair to him to deal only with the preliminary point.
Dr. Barnett submitted that it was patently clear that introduction of the Bills in the Senate was contrary to constitutional requirement. He submitted that it was clear that the nature of the legislation proposed required conformity with a constitutional amendment procedure and if it was clear that the procedure was neither being followed nor intended to be followed then that process offended the Constitution.
Attorneys-at-law R. N. Henriques, Q.C, David Batts and Richard Small made submissions opposing the government's application.
After the claims were filed in the Supreme Court, the Government announced its decision to postpone the Senate debate on the Bills until the court hears the matter.
