Peter Espeut
I DO not believe that as a nation as a polity we are ready to abandon appeals to a politically independent court. Let me explain my position, which I have argued in this
column for many years.
Why didn't the framers of our Constitution at the time of Independence (like National Hero the Right Excellent Norman Manley) abandon appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) then? Clearly the almost universally agreed view then was that we were not ready. What has changed? What do we have in 2005 that we did not have in 1962? Well, let me tell you.
In 1962 we did not have
a criminal sector armed by
politicians of both stripes; it is the heirs of these politicians who have not taken serious steps to disarm their supporters who now want to abandon appeals to the JCPC. In 1962 we did not have political garrisons defended by gunmen so well connected that high-ranking politicians
feel compelled to attend their
ostentatious funerals bedecked with partisan paraphernalia. These politicians, who are not afraid or ashamed to show
solidarity with these unsavoury characters, are among those who now want to abandon appeals to the JCPC.
No attempt is being made
to dismantle these political garrisons by either side. Indeed, it can be said that the process of garrison formation continues.
PER CAPITA MURDER RATE
By the latest ranking, Jamaica has the highest per capita murder rate in the world. We also have an extraordinarily high rate of police killings, and an extraordinarily low rate of trials and
convictions of murderers. Our justice system seems unable to detect and prosecute serious crimes perpetrated by either agents of the state or agents of the political parties.
In 1962, we did not have a fully-developed system of
distributing scarce benefits like crown lands and plum contracts to political cronies. It has
since been perfected. Since our Constitution was written, several cases of corrupt distribution of land have been detected; many remain undetected. I remember the case of multiple parcels of land in Beverley Hills in the 1960s, and some more recent cases. In no case was the corrupt land transaction reversed; all the illegal and corrupt transfers were allowed to stand. No one who obtained land in questionable circumstances has been required to give it up. It is politicians who presided over this scandalous
situation and politicians who want to abandon appeals to the JCPC.
Those who have committed
to abolish appeals to the
United Kingdom-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council couch the argument for the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court in nationalistic terms: we must throw off the trappings of colonialism, and become a Jamaican or Caribbean state, and so on. If these same anti-colonial politicians really wanted to throw off the trappings of colonialism, then they would have already thrown off the ridiculous and meaningless pseudo-honorific titles based in the notorious British class system as the United States and France and South Africa did when they
liberated themselves. Have you ever heard the President of the United States or of France referred to as the 'most honourable'? Or the U.S. secretary of state called 'honourable'? The same prime minister who wants to abolish appeals to the JCPC, is a member of that same Privy Council, and year before last presided over a Parliament which passed a law giving himself the colonial title of 'most honourable'.
'BARREL JUSTICE'
How can our politicians be trusted to create a Caribbean Court where justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done? At least at the JCPC,
justice appears to be done because their judgments are manifestly free of partisan considerations.
There is no one more nationalistic than I, wanting our young nation to paddle its own canoe. But we have to face facts: our politicians have created a system which is largely 'barrel justice' from a police gun barrel or stuffed in a barrel. Our politicians have not been faithful in small things, and it is foolish and imprudent to reward our ramshackle democracy with more power
concentrated at the top. The same people who have misused the power they have, want to get rid of appeals to the JCPC because they want more power over you and me: they want a court of their own making.
Things have got much worse since 1962 when Norman Manley and others determined that we shouldn't abolish appeals to the JCPC. We were not ready in 1962 and we are not ready in 2005. More proof of this is
visible in how profound matters of justice have been reduced to partisan politics, and handled with indecent and incompetent haste.
The CARICOM Single Market and Economy will need a court to resolve trade disputes. Let the Caribbean Court be that, and leave intact for now, our ability to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We will be ready for more in time.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development non-governmental organisation.
