Delroy Chuck

The Constitution, it is rightly argued, belongs to the people. For over 30 years, Jamaica has sought to make meaningful changes to improve our Constitution, to protect the people's rights and freedoms and, hopefully, to reflect the proper relations between the Government and the people. At the present time, the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Charter of Rights is before Parlia-ment awaiting a full parliamentary debate - there are still minor areas of disagreement, but the report reflects substantial agreement.

The Government and Opposition are yet to agree on the mechanism to introduce the Caribbean Court of Appeal (CCJ) as the final appellate court to replace the Judicial Com-mittee of the Privy Council (JCPC). Preliminary talks have occurred and further meetings are pending. Interestingly, whispers in the corridors of power reveal that the Government wants to change Section 100 of the Constitution to raise the retirement age of judges, even though the matter has not been formally put to the Opposition.

Not the right time

Quite frankly, with a general election around the corner, it is not the right time to rush and make changes to our Constitution. When a constitutional debate occurs in Parliament, it should be held in a calm and contemplative atmosphere, devoid of the hot-headed parlia-mentary cut and thrust and the need to score political points. The Opposition therefore reserves its right to engage in any constitutional debate to change, modify or reform the present Constitution at this time.

For example, any proposed constitutional debate to raise the retirement age of judges from 70 to 72 will not be supported. If the age limit can be 72, why not 75, or should judges get short-term contract after reaching retirement age? In the United States, and up to recently in the United Kingdom, judges served for indefinite tenures, some continuing until they are over 90 years. The matter deserves more consideration and should be a part of the overall examination presently being conducted for reform of the justice system. Actually, do we even know the present views of our judges?

Then, journalist Vernon Daley misguidedly blames the Opposition for requiring a referendum to replace the JCPC with the CCJ. From the inception, the Opposition argued that the final court of appeal should not be a political football that can be changed by a simple parliamentary majority. At the very least, it should be entrenched in the Constitution on par with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and, thus, would require bipartisan consensus to replace it. The Opposition's position is that a final court is so fundamental to our judicial arrangement that the people should decide. Moreover, for the CCJ to become our final court would properly require modification of S.49, which can only be done by way of a referendum.

Piecemeal reform

The Government and Opposition have met and agreed that the CCJ will only be introduced into the Constitution by referendum, which will deeply entrench the court. To date, the mechanism to put the issue before the people has not been decided but the people will have the final say. The Opposition has a number of concerns with the present treaty setting up the CCJ and until these are resolved, we are unlikely to agree to an early referendum.

In any event, since the Constitution belongs to the people, it is about time we put several matters before them as a part of a comprehensive package of constitutional reform. The present piecemeal reform is unworthy of our intellectual capability. The proper approach should be to agree on matters that require a referendum such as removing the Queen as Head of State, deciding on an appropriate Republican status for our small island and changing S.49 to make it easier to carry out meaningful changes. However, until the general election is held, let us leave the Constitution alone.