THE EDITOR, Sir:PRIME MINISTER P.J. Patterson in a speech involving reference to the Privy Council asked: "Are we going to wait until they kick us out?" The question and its implications remain to be addressed.
Access to the Privy Council
is the gift of the British Government, we in the Caribbean have no control over continued access of this important institution. It can be summarily removed and there is precedent for this. The General Medical Council unilaterally and with little notice recently terminated its relationship with several Commonwealth medical schools, including that at the University of the West Indies.
It cannot be good policy to "wait until they kick us out" to start scrambling to establish something as important as a final court of appeal. We may continue to have access to the Privy Council for several hundred years but,
alternatively, we can lose this access next year. A referendum under the present circumstances will be the expression of a desire about a consideration which is beyond our control.
This seems to me to be a form of madness. It is theoretically possible that we could lose access to the Privy Council shortly after a costly referendum. If we are going to have a referendum, logically, we should extract a binding agreement with the British for long-term access to the Privy Council prior to the vote.
I respect the people's right to choose and if they wish a
referendum they should have one. However, in the present context, neither a referendum nor the JLP's suggestion that there be a "trial run of the CCJ" adequately addresses the implications that arise from the question the Prime Minister raised. I suppose they may be useful stopgap measures in a politically charged debate.
A more logical approach would be unanimous support for the establishment of another final court of appeal sooner rather than later since we do not know when we may need it. This should be done by a most
rigorous process to ensure that it is of the highest standard and one which, on its inauguration, has the confidence of the vast majority of Jamaicans.
I truly believe that this 'crossroad' presents some wonderful opportunities for Jamaica to get some other things right but the tone of the conversation must be changed. It is possible to add the court to the electoral process as another outstanding achievement. My opening contributions are (1) A rejection of the present privileged position of bar
associations in the selection of judges. (2) A wholehearted endorsement of Wilmot Perkins often repeated suggestion of a selection process similar to that in the USA initially. (3) A public review of the performance of judges every 15 years; and (4). Eventually, direct election of judges by the people.
I am, etc.,
W.WEST
Kingston 8
