Dear Editor,

The debate about whether Jamaica should adopt the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as a final appellate body meanders along.

Although as a country we have celebrated 60 years of Independence, there does not appear to be any will on the part of our elected officials to put this debate to rest.

One of the arguments advanced by anti-CCJ proponents is the question of trust. They contend that they cannot trust the CCJ. When they are asked to explain this position they usually proffer the following arguments:

1) They cannot trust the CCJ to make correct legal decisions

2) They cannot trust the CCJ to be impartial because of its proximity, that is, the judges are taken from the region and, therefore, possess views coloured by their regional experiences, and they are familiar with members of the legal profession and vice versa.

3)They cannot trust the CCJ because it is susceptible to political interference.

4) Because the CCJ is staffed predominantly by non-Jamaican judges, it cannot be trusted to care about the rights of Jamaicans and, as such, will not uphold these rights.

I find it curious that when evidence in support of the above arguments is requested, none is provided. Often anti-CCJ advocates believe that merely repeating their arguments constitutes sufficient evidence. But these arguments raise serious allegations that tarnish the reputation of the CCJ. To simply make these allegations without evidence is utterly irresponsible.

The fact of the matter is that the CCJ has been in operation for almost 20 years. During that time it has made numerous judicial pronouncements. If the CCJ were incompetent or unduly influenced, a pattern of irregular rulings should be apparent. But there is no evidence of such a pattern. In fact, the evidence supports the opposite view.

The evidence reveals that the CCJ has consistently shown that it is more than capable of making sound judicial pronouncements and is not a victim of improper influence. As such, when a careful analysis is done of the anti-CCJ arguments detailed above, the irresistible conclusion is that these arguments are fuelled by either immature considerations or an inexplicable mistrust in or dislike for regional institutions. Invariably, these arguments feed into a narrative underpinned by ignorance and xenophobia.

I am convinced that the CCJ is the way forward. Nonetheless, I humbly suggest to those who are uncertain but truly interested in knowing the truth about the CCJ to visit the court’s website and read about its establishment, funding, and the measures taken to insulate the court from undue influence. Read the judgements which have been delivered. Try and see if you can find a pattern of incorrect or perverse rulings. Do your own research and certainly do not blindly embrace arguments which appeal to your predetermined views on the issue.

Finally, to our political leaders, the parliamentary process which will put this debate to rest needs to be concluded soon. It is embarrassing and incoherent to claim our place as an independent nation for six decades and simultaneously depend on an institution established by our former colonial masters as our final court of appeal. It should not take 60 years of Independence to realise that the Privy Council is a relic of the past.

To add insult to injury, this institution remains inaccessible to the vast majority of Jamaicans. Any further delay in resolving this untenable status quo confirms that the will to effect an overdue change is indeed lacking.

Kwame Gordon

gordon_kwame@yahoo.com