KINGSTON, Jamaica — Opposition member of the Senate, Dr Christopher Tufton, has questioned the suggestion that the vote on the three Bills seeking to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as Jamaica’s final appellate court, will be a “conscience vote”.

Dr Tufton told the Senate, in his contribution to the debate on the Bills on Friday, that while there is an important balance to be achieved, there is a third force, and interests, which cannot be ignored.

“This is our collective commitment to our political organisations – the JLP and the PNP,” Tufton explained.

“I have heard the talk about this being a conscience vote. I am forced to ask the question, whose or what conscience do we speak of?” he asked.

“Is this the conscience of our respective political parties, or the conscience of individual persons? Both are important, but they are not necessarily the same,” he added.

He told the president of the Senate, Senator Floyd Morris, that whether he wished to admit it or not, the debate has become increasingly partisan and politically polarised, which has fostered a collision course between individual consciences and commitment to respective political parties.

“I agree with the minister who piloted the three Bills that we must not seek to politicise our judicial system…but the minister (Senator Mark Golding) betrays this sentiment when he describes an opposing view on this issue as ‘bizarre’, or when the former minister now elder statesman (K D Knight), who spoke just after him, described those who oppose his preference as ‘acting madly’. I believe we are all sane people here, Minister, until a medical examination says otherwise,” he stated.

He said that this has affected the possibility of bipartisan solutions to the existing differences.

He added that this was evident in the missing fundamental principle, which is to be clear on the things they agree on, and to seek compromise on the things they disagree on.

“I humbly suggest that if we do, we will find that we are not as far apart as we think. We may find more to agree on, than to disagree on, and may even find it possible to have full agreement, with further consultations,” he suggested.

Balford Henry