THERE was a glimmer of hope yesterday that the Government and Opposition could reach an agreement to remove the London-based Privy Council as Jamaica’s final appeals court.

A decision about whether there should be one referendum or two on a series of constitutional reforms, including the removal of the Privy Council and Jamaica becoming a Republic, was all that appeared to stand between the two.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Senator A J Nicholson, in a ministerial statement to the Senate, proposed that the electorate be asked to approve the constitutional reforms at a date soon after the next general elections.

But the Opposition’s Senator Dorothy Lightbourne insisted that Opposition approval was unlikely unless the Government was prepared to go the route of an indicative referendum in respect of the decision to replace the Privy Council with the regional Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as Jamaica’s final appellate court.

“You are going to have to decide whether you wish to have the electorate subject to two referendums… or you stick to the referendum that is demanded by the constitution,” Nicholson responded.

The Jamaican government, under the former prime minister, P J Patterson, gave heavy backing to the establishment of the CCJ to replace the British Privy Council. But faced with blistering opposition from the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and human rights groups, was forced to back down and join the CCJ only in its role of interpreting the terms of the Caricom Treaty.

Nicholson said yesterday the Government planned to bring a resolution to Parliament this year, recommending that immediately following the next general elections legislation paving the way for constitutional reform should be drafted, as part of a Cabinet-approved programme to bring the constitution into the 21st century.

The new constitution, he said, should come into being by an act of Parliament through the appropriate process. But he added that it was necessary that the new provisions received the stamp of approval from members of parliament and also of the electorate itself in a referendum.

Nicholson suggested that several matters needed to be settled before that, but there was not enough time before the next general election.

Cabinet had given directions for the production of a green paper outlining the elements of the new constitution that had been agreed on and a suggested strategy for resolving the issues that had not been agreed on.

According to the attorney general, it would be used as the basis for a campaign to familiarise the public with the proposals and open up an avenue for debate.

Further, Nicholson said two bills would also be laid in the House during the calendar year to establish the CCJ in the Constitution as the final court of appeal in place of the Privy Council and to have this entrenched in the constitution.

“After passage in Parliament, the inclusion of new provisions would have to be submitted to the electorate for approval, this will ensure that the electorate has the opportunity from the very beginning to give their stamp of approval to the institution of the CCJ in place of the Privy Council,” Senator Nicholson told members.

But Lightbourne said the populace must first be consulted as to whether they wanted the legislation.

“You are asking for the Opposition’s agreement to pass these pieces of legislation and I’m saying we do not have that right to do that, the people must first say that they want these pieces of legislation,” said the JLP senator.

“What you are proposing is that the Opposition go along with you to pass these two pieces of legislation and then present that to the people as a fait accompli. The opposition does not agree with that,” the senator argued.

“You are not prevented from implementing CCJ if you ask the people of Jamaica… The people of Jamaica must first be asked whether they wish to give up their right of appeal to the Privy Council and secondly whether they wish this right to be given to the CCJ,” Lightbourne added.

Nicholson argued, however, that to have two referendum would be an expensive route.

“To have that indicative referendums would cost the same amount of money as any other referendum. You are going to have to decide whether you still wish to have the electorate subject to two referendums costing that amount of money each time; or you stick to the referendum that is demanded by the constitution,” Nicholson rationalised.

The Opposition, however, remained unmoved.

“We agree with you that it will not be cheap, but justice is not cheap. Let us go the way of indicative referendum,” Lightbourne insisted.