OPPOSITION Leader Mark Golding has given the clearest signal yet that the People’s National Party (PNP) will not support the constitutional reform process unless the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) becomes Jamaica’s final appellate court.

Golding made his and the PNP’s position clear during the first meeting on Wednesday of the Joint Select Committee that has been established to peruse and report on the Constitutional Amendment Bill tabled in the Parliament last month by Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte.

The meeting was supposed to deal with procedural matters; however, Golding read a statement, complete with four questions for Prime Minister Andrew Holness, as to why the process to sever ties with the British Monarchy and make Jamaica a republic cannot be twinned with transitioning the country away from the United Kingdom-based Privy Council which is currently Jamaica’s final appellate court.

Golding reaffirmed that the PNP wants Jamaica to become a republic, “delinking from the British Monarchy and more”, but he stated that in the 21st Century the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has never given to the public an indication of its support for Jamaica to withdraw from the British Monarch’s court, “not even as an interim measure”.

According to Golding, who is also president of the PNP, in tabling the amendment bill, the Government has cemented its intention for Jamaica to move away from the British Monarchy while remaining tied to the Privy Council. He insisted that the Opposition supports both initiatives. “It should be two, instead of one,” he remarked, adding that “time come for full decolonisation”.

Golding questioned, “How can the vast majority of the Jamaican people be left behind, particularly in a process of decolonisation, having already been made less fortunate by colonisation in the first place?”

“Why should they continue to remain deprived of the fundamental right of access to justice at the highest level?” he continued, before posing the following four questions for the prime minister:

1. The CCJ Bills, having been tabled for the second time in Parliament 10 years ago, “Are the people of Jamaica not entitled to be told why the Government has not tabled the CCJ Bills again thereby signalling that both Government and Opposition will work together to accomplish the twin objectives of transitioning both from the British Monarchy and the British Monarch’s Court?

2. Bearing in mind that the history of the constitutional reform process over the last 30 years has, undeniably, birthed a certain distrust factor, would the Government not, like the Opposition, like for that to be put behind us before embarking on this leg of the historic legislative process and referendum for Jamaica to become a republic?

3. Is the Government not under a fundamental duty to explain in clear and unambiguous terms why it is determined to proceed in this piecemeal fashion instead of using the historic opportunity…to ensure that the majority of the Jamaican people enjoy the benefit of access to justice to their highest court?

4. Would the people and we (politicians) ourselves not regard it as a welcome sign of maturity and wisdom to witness an agreement between the parties on the settled way forward for success on these new constitutional arrangements regardless of which party wins the upcoming national elections?

Malahoo Forte committed to forwarding the questions to Holness while insisting that the process is best undertaken in phases.

However, Golding stated that the “answers that are forthcoming will determine the character of the Opposition’s cooperation in this exercise”.