Carolyn Gomes, Contributor 
Gomes
LINTON WALTERS (writing in yesterday's Gleaner) took issue with my analysis of our motivation for the legal challenge to the process of the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) by the Government of Jamaica. (It is interesting how
persons can purport to know your own motivation better than you do). He is wrong on a number of issues (including our motives).
Mr. Walters is correct, however, in insisting that the issue is political, and in this case, I suggest he refer to the definition of 'political' in the Oxford dictionary. There he will find that political is defined as 'concerning the state or its government, or public affairs generally'.
We agree wholeheartedly that this is a matter that fundamentally
concerns 'the state and its government, or public affairs generally'. In fact, we would be hard-pressed to think of anything more political than an issue such as this, which affects so profoundly one of the fundamental pillars of the organisation of our governance.
ENGAGED IN DEBATE
It is precisely because of the potential of the process of the establishment of the CCJ to affect our governance structures that Jamaicans For Justice has been engaged in the debate since 2000. Our position has always been, and remains, that this is a matter that is larger than partisan politics (which so narrowly
confines the thinking and actions of far too many of us Jamaicans) and requires the kind of national consensus building that attended the drafting of our Constitution.
A fragile Final Court of Appeal, which for lack of entrenchment, was subject to the whims and
fancies of transient parliamentary majorities is absolutely undesirable and cannot be the height of our aspirations for sovereignty (albeit in a regional context).
That concerns about the process attendant on the establishment
of the CCJ are not limited to Jamaica can be seen in the
excellent article of Hamid
Ghany, writing in the Trinidad Guardian of Sunday, January 30.
In the article Mr. Ghany writes: "The current strategy in some quarters seems to be one of
antagonism against those who do not support the court, while those who ask fundamental questions for which there are inadequate answers are viewed as troublmakers who need to be silenced or ignored. This attitude comes from the nature of our own
political systems and our political culture, where opposing views have to be discounted, even if they have merit."
Mr. Ghany continues: "Will the court become a part of the regional landscape on an organic or a mechanical basis? If the court is not endorsed across the political aisles in our current majoritarian democratic systems, and fails to gain acceptance through the use of referenda where such requirements exist, then we are playing with virtual fire over an institution that is intended to play a central part in the future stability of our region."
ENDORSEMENT
Jamaicans For Justice endorses wholeheartedly, the suggestion of Mr. Ghany that "regional
governments have to make that final commitment to secure the future of this institution by engaging in acts of consensus with their oppositions, which ought to lead to government and opposition going to the people collectively to offer the court as a regional icon that will last beyond our lifetime".
We recommend the article in its entirety to Mr. Walters (and all interested persons), in the hope that we can move out of the confined space of partisan
political thinking, into an era of rational, non-confrontational and consensus-building political thinking and discussion.
Dr. Carolyn Gomes is
executive director of
Jamaicans For Justice.
