In a Letter to the Editor last week, JLP leader Andrew Holness sought to defend his party's position on the Caribbean Court of Justice, the CCJ, saying he opposes the regional court because he is a nationalist. He writes, "I feel compelled to affirm that I am a nationalist; always have been, always will be. For me, it's Jamaica first. I am unapologetic in the view that our priority as a people should be to consider and pursue that which is in Jamaica's best interest at all times." Mr. Holness is trying to make it seem as though the CCJ and Jamaica's best national interest are mutually exclusive, when in fact accepting the CCJ is in the national interest, and therefore, a nationalist objective. Accepting the CCJ is putting Jamaica first.
Because of the small size of Commonwealth Caribbean populations, it is in our best interest to collaborate with others in the region with shared interests and objectives, thereby easing the financial burden. The University of the West Indies is one such example, where we have collaborated to educate our children and build our nations. UWI, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have passed through its various campuses, is the region's greatest success story. The CCJ can be another.
When the idea for a regional court was initially proposed--ironically by the JLP's own Hugh Lawson Shearer in 1970--it was acknowledged that going it alone would be a difficult and expensive road. Shearer saw the utility of sharing resources for a regional final appellate court. That logic still exists today. Jamaica is in no better position today to establish its own final court.
In June last year, DPP Paula Llewelyn described the dismal state of the judicial system. "The system is underresourced and overburdened," she said. "You must be prepared [to] give more than a gentle hint to the policy makers that, notwithstanding the tight fiscal space, try to find the resources so that more can be put into the justice system. Where are we going to get the courtrooms and the court staff to try the cases? You don't have the staff, the number of prosecutors, court reporters and judges to do that. So what is happening is that the system is almost turning in on itself."
In October last year, the outcome of the Boulevard murder case brought this sorry state of affairs into perspective. The trial of Corporal Louis Lynch and Constable Paul Edwards was discontinued on the basis that the matter was too expensive to pursue. The DPP said it had been very expensive for the State retry the policemen because the Government had to pay millions of dollars to bring five overseas witnesses to the first trial. Ms. Llewelyn explained, "I spoke to the Permanent Secretary at length and she indicated that $20 million... in light of all the competing claims on the budget at the Ministry of Justice, it just would not be possible at this time. I don't have the luxury of being able to think of justice without the resources."
Yet, the JLP insists that Jamaica should pursue its own final court, even without giving any indication of the cost or resources it would require. Some argue that governments often find money for things they want to do; however, Ms. Llewelyn's description of the systematic neglect of the justice system under both parties over the years does not lend confidence to such a supposition. Additionally, the tight fiscal reality is such that public sector workers are being offered no more than a 5% salary increase after several years of stagnant wages, doctors are complaining daily about the state of the public health system, and there are insufficient funds to finance the courts that exist. Yet the JLP wants us to believe that money will magically appear to create and run a new court. Even when another perfectly good court in the region, that we've already paid to join, already exists!
Since my radio commentary, the JLP's communication officer Nesta Morgan has pointed out that the party was not proposing this local alternative be implemented now. I appreciate the clarification; however, this position is even more worrisome. The JLP is insisting upon "economic independence" before contemplating changing the final court. It is gravely unfortunate that they have tied justice to such a vague and idealistic goal. How is economic independence to be measured? When will it be attained? In the five decades since political independence, this goal has remained elusive, and it may well continue to evade us for decades more. In the meantime, the CCJ sits as a viable alternative, a wasted opportunity.
Use CCJ until a Jamaican final court is viable
Dr. Paul Ashley has made a sensible proposition. In his Sunday Gleaner op-ed, he writes, "There can be no serious objection to any nation state aspiring to have its own judicial system located within its territorial boundaries. However, the manifestation of that aspiration has to be based on the requisite infrastructure being in place and its general public having trust and confidence in the supporting institutions.
"Both parties will agree that Jamaica is not yet at that stage. But this should not prevent us from moving in the general direction by de-linking from the colonial masters and placing reliance on others with a shared colonial experience and similar national aspirations. There can be no harm in replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ and at some future period assessing the performance of such a court."
This is an idea I can support. Leave the Privy Council and use the CCJ until Jamaica is ready to establish its own final court. Since Jamaica is clearly not ready now, why delay or deny justice to those who seek it in the interim? Why continue to subject our people to the exorbitant costs and prohibitive access to justice at the Privy Council, when a regional alternative exists that can dramatically improve access?
There is no good reason to oppose the CCJ. It is a good court with qualified and respected judges who are insulated from political interference in a way not even the Privy Council is. It is an affordable option for both the government and the people of Jamaica, and will increase access to justice. The JLP is wrong for opposing it.
