Caribbean Court of Justice

Simpson Miller daring to take Jamaica in different direction

2012-01-16T13:58:00.003-05:00

Source: Toronto Star

January 15, 2012

Last month, in an otherwise ordinary election debate, Jamaica’s candidates for prime minister were asked whether they agree with former prime minister Bruce Golding’s infamous stance against having openly gay people in his cabinet.

After then prime minister Andrew Holness of the Jamaican Labour Party hedged on the question, opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller gave an answer previously unthinkable for a Jamaican prime ministerial candidate.

“I do not support the position of the former prime minister, because people should be appointed to positions based on their ability to manage and to lead,” she said. “No one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.”

Simpson Miller also called for a conscience vote in parliament on Jamaica’s “buggery laws,” which criminalize male homosexual acts.

The unprecedented comments stunned observers, created a firestorm and brought LGBT rights — long a sensitive issue in a country with a reputation for homophobia — to the forefront of the election.

Clive Mullings, the energy minister under the JLP, warned that “God brought down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah.” He was not re-elected. Another JLP member openly mused whether international gay rights organizations were funding the PNP’s campaign.

Some observers predicted Simpson Miller’s stance would spell her demise in the Dec. 29 election. But despite polls that showed the two parties neck and neck, her People’s National Party coasted to victory, collecting 41 seats to the JLP’s 22. The result made the conservative JLP the first one-term administration in the island nation’s modern history.

“It showed how courageous she is,” said Glenda Simms, a renowned feminist who has been an adviser to Simpson Miller. “She knew they could turn it around against her, and they tried. … But she’s not prepared to be a part of that history of discrimination. … She’s going to do whatever she can to break it.”

Simpson Miller, 66, is turning heads by taking aggressive stances on sometimes contentious issues, occasionally going against her own party. (The gay rights issue was not a part of their platform.)

The woman many Jamaicans refer to as “Sista P” has said she intends for Jamaica to jettison the monarchy and become a republic, taking its final — if symbolic — step toward independence. The country celebrates 50 years of independence from Britain in August.

At her swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 5, Simpson Miller argued the Caribbean Court of Justice(CCJ) should be Jamaica’s final court of appeal. It would replace the judicial committee of the Privy Council, a reconstituted panel of judges from the British supreme court. The Trinidad-based CCJ has been underused because Jamaica, Trinidad and others haven’t adopted it.

Holness, 39, called the general election in early December only weeks after being sworn in as prime minister. He took the job after his predecessor Bruce Golding resigned over the handling of the so-called “Dudus affair.”

After spending months fighting gang leader Christopher “Dudus” Coke’s extradition to New York on drug trafficking charges, Golding’s administration bowed to U.S. pressure in May 2010 and sent police and the military into his Kingston compound to take him into custody. The ensuing gun battle caused 73 civilian deaths, and the JLP was widely condemned.

Experts said voter outrage over the Dudus affair and concerns about the economy trumped other issues. Meanwhile, Simpson Miller’s comments about LGBT rights are resonating with the public.

“People have taken it as a signal from the prime minister that there is a new era, a new attitude that needs to be embraced,” said Ivelaw Lloyd Griffith, a political science professor at York College of the City University of New York and an expert in Caribbean politics.

Simpson Miller was Jamaica’s prime minister from March 2006 to September 2007. She won the job in an internal party vote when her predecessor P.J. Patterson retired. She narrowly lost her 2007 re-election bid and became leader of the opposition.

She was born in the rural town of Wood Hall in St. Catherine Parish and was first elected to parliament in 1976 with the PNP. She has served in various cabinet positions since 1989.

Glenda Simms was president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women in 1996 when Simpson Miller, then minister of labour, social security and sport, asked her to return to Jamaica to head the country’s Bureau of Women’s Affairs.

Simms returned, impressed by Simpson Miller as “someone who really wanted to make a difference.”

Simms remembers accompanying Simpson Miller to see people in a fire-ravaged inner-city neighbourhood and thinking she was destined to be prime minister one day.

“I thought: ‘This is the kind of leader that everyone needs.’ She listened, she understood their lives and she did not distance herself from them.”

But Simpson Miller, whose campaign emphasized job creation, might have to resort to tough fiscal austerity measures to get her country’s stagnant economy on track. Jamaica is saddled with a public debt load of more than 120 per cent of its GDP — one of the world’s largest debt-to-GDP ratios. The island’s unemployment rate is 12.9 per cent, up from 9.8 per cent in 2007.

Its agreement with the International Monetary Fund, which supplied it with $1.27 billion in 2010, expires in May and must be renegotiated. Those talks, though difficult, appear to be an administration priority: Finance Minister Peter Phillips is due to meet with an IMF team next week.

Simpson Miller’s election continues an anti-incumbent trend in the region. St. Lucia’s ruling party was voted out earlier in the year, and Guyana’s longtime governing party lost significant legislative ground.

It’s a sign that the region’s voters — usually fiercely loyal to one party or another — are feeling less attached, Griffith said. “People are rethinking how they should do their voting and whether they should vote at all.”

Despite the lopsided seat count, Simpson Miller was not elected on a groundswell of public support. The 53 per cent voter turnout is Jamaica’s lowest ever for a general election except that in 1983, when the PNP boycotted the vote. The country’s voter turnout hovered around 85 per cent in the 1980s.

Alissa Trotz, director of the Caribbean studies program at the University of Toronto, said the result shows an overall disaffection with the political process in Jamaica. She said she hopes the PNP recognizes its 41 seats don’t overwhelmingly translate to a majority mandate, given the low turnout.

“It presents Portia with the challenge of reaching across the aisle,” she said.

But Simpson Miller may not always find a willing partner on the other side. In his concession speech on election night, Holness declared, “Our campaign for the next government starts tomorrow.”

Privy Council does cost something

2012-01-09T11:45:00.002-05:00

by Jeffrey Foreman, Contributor

Source: Jamaica Gleaner

I respond to one aspect of the arguments advanced by Robert Collie in his article 'Use CCJ funding to improve our own courts', published Thursday, January 5.

While no direct cost to maintain the Privy Council is incurred by the Government of Jamaica , there is a cost attached to accessing the court which would either be lessened or not exist at all if the Caribbean Court of Justice were our final court. In this regard, I speak of the cost to taxpayers of having to pay for counsel in the UK or, alternatively, airfare, accommodation and other expenses for anyone travelling to argue before Their Lordships.

Such expenses would clearly be significantly less if the same individuals travelled next door to Trinidad. Moreover, these costs would be eliminated whenever the CCJ, executing part of its role as a roving court, has sittings in Jamaica. To this latter point must be added to the mix the fact that teleconferencing equipment has been installed in all signatory states so that, even if the CCJ was sitting in Trinidad, no government official need pack a single bag to go anywhere.

Individual financial burden

Those same costs faced by the government have to be borne by individuals. It almost need not be said but, whereas the state, even a cash-strapped one like ours, can always allocate funds or raise taxes or borrow to meet its obligations, in this case legal ones, an individual does not have the same latitude.

One can therefore conclude that the cost of accessing the Privy Council must serve as deterrence to any Jamaican who is of the view that justice has not been done at the level of the Court of Appeal. Indeed, most cases from Jamaica involve the State (criminal or constitutional matters), wealthy individuals, or big companies.

In contrast, the trend so far for the CCJ is that more civil cases are being heard by that court. This fact was highlighted by Sir Dennis Byron, president of the CCJ, in a speech titled 'The CCJ and its Integral Role In Development Of Caribbean Jurisprudence', at a lecture hosted by the UWI Cave Hill Law Society in November 2011.

In that same speech, Sir Dennis noted that the court has heard a number of civil appeals in forma pauperis under Rule 10.6 of the CCJ rules.

The cost attached to accessing the Privy Council has the effect of keeping ordinary individuals away from the highest rungs of justice. Indeed, as has been pointed out in many fora, limited access also means that the development of our jurisprudence is restricted to criminal matters and those affecting moneyed interests.

Lastly, I would like to counter the argument being implied by Mr Collie that the money spent to honour our treaty obligations has been wasted on a court which does not help to improve the administration of justice in the country.

In addition to providing the teleconferencing equipment men-tioned earlier, the CCJ, through strengthening the work of Caribbean Association of Judicial Officers, the Caribbean Academy for Law and Court Administration, and the Caribbean Court Technology Users, enhances the administration and delivery of justice in Jamaica and throughout our region.

If, as Justinian noted, "Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to everyone his due," most Jamaicans will have to satisfy themselves with a placard-bearing type of justice, for it is all they will be able to afford with the Privy Council as our final court.

Jeffrey H. Foreman is a student in the Faculty of Law, UWI, Cave Hill

Use CCJ funding to improve our own courts

2012-01-05T17:30:00.001-05:00

Source: Jamaica Gleaner - January 5, 2012

I have noticed the stream of letters in your newspaper and elsewhere attesting to the 'need' for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Here are a few facts that may be worth swallowing before the CCJ crowd jumps up and down and trumpets victory:

1 Currently, the Government of Jamaica spends US$3.07 million per annum to maintain this court. We are the biggest financial contributor to a court that was not chosen by the Jamaican people.

2 Currently, the Government of Jamaica spends US$0 to maintain the Privy Council.

3 Trinidad and Tobago, the country that currently hosts the CCJ, has given all indications that it has no intention of joining the CCJ. This may be linked to the history in that country of judges leaving the Bench and becoming actively involved in the political process. The saga of their former chief justice, Satnarine Sharma, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Indeed, one could look at the recent involvement of a local resident magistrate, who left the Bench to join the political process, of the very real fact that you will have judges who will have their political biases. I will quote the well-worn line from Lord Hewart CJ in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy: "Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

4 The British, despite all their protestations, cannot unilaterally dispense with the Privy Council. It is part of the Jamaican Constitution (as is the Queen). It would require the head of state in Jamaica to rid herself of us (which she has every right of doing). However, her role as Queen of England does not, in theory at least, supersede role as Queen of Jamaica.

5 The CCJ only recently appointed a Jamaican to sit on its Bench, a Jamaican who has never served in the judiciary in Jamaica or elsewhere. It is to be noted that a lot of the criticism levelled against the decision in Morin v the Attorney General of Belize targeted the judge's judgment. To even the unseasoned legal scholar, his judgment, in particular, was cause to pause, though one thankfully notes that the outgoing CCJ president, Michael de la Bastide, and Justice Saunders of the same CCJ provided most excellent judgments to counterbalance that judge's judgment.

Appeals to indignation over colonialism is a red herring which should not be given any substantial weight. We do not look to our courts with any special lustre that their being called 'colonial' affects any right-thinking Jamaican. We want our courts to provide predictable, reliable and judicially sound judgments. It has been our experience, in Jamaica at least, that these characteristics don't come out often from our justice system.

Give common man a say

If the CCJ is such that it will meet with the people's desire, and if it is to have the ultimate judgment over the people's lives the people should be allowed to have a say in whether they want the court or not. The feeling that justice is a cloistered virtue that the common man should have no say over may be 'catnip' for the petit-bourgeoisie intelligentsia in our higher-education senior common rooms. However, it does not resonate with the common man.

Maybe if we had more accountability for our judges and people didn't feel that judges were so untouchable and unrelatable, maybe people could start to buy into our justice system and feel that it is an integral part of their lives.

We are spending US$3.07 million a year that could be better spent fixing our local courthouses, training more judges and providing greater access to justice. We could have a main criminal courthouse in Kingston that actually has parking that members of the public and attorneys can have access to. We could even, and this may blow the minds of readers, actually start to clear up the backlog of cases jamming our court system.

One wonders what the almost US$21 million, since inauguration, could have been used for. Hopefully, something more than a shiny building in Port-of-Spain providing fat pay cheques to judges who know as much about the life of the man in Pepper, St Elizabeth, as they know about the life of the man on Broad Street, Bridgetown.

Written by Robert Collie who is an attorney-at-law.

JFJ: Referendum for CCJ

2012-01-02T23:53:00.002-05:00

JFJ: Referendum for CCJ

Source: Jamaica Gleaner/ Power 106 News

Human rights advocates, Jamaicans for Justice (JF), are maintaining that Government must conduct a referendum to determine whether to set up the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as Jamaica’s final court of appeal.

Executive Director of JFJ, Dr. Carolyn Gomes, says the matter is too important to not allow citizens to have a say in whether to establish the CCJ as Jamaica's final appellate court.

Dr. Gomes was responding to intentions outlined by the People’s National Party (PNP) in today’s Gleaner, to have the CCJ established in both the original and appellate jurisdictions, in time for the country’s 50th Independence celebrations this year.

If the PNP is successful, the CCJ will replace the London-based Privy Council as Jamaica’s final appellate court.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the former PNP administration, A.J. Nicholson, said given the softening of the Jamaica Labour Party’s stance on the issue, he was confident that the move would be supported by both Houses of Parliament.

However, Dr. Gomes maintains that there are still several issues, particularly regarding the security of the court, that remain a serious cause for concern.

She argues that CCJ Agreement, which establishes the court, can be easily altered by a simple majority of CARICOM prime ministers.

She notes that there was in fact a recent alteration of the Agreement, to amend the terms of the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, the regional body which appoints judges to the court.

The move to institute the CCJ as Jamaica’s final appellate court was an effort commenced by the former P.J. Patterson-led PNP Government, but was strongly opposed by the Edward Seaga- led Opposition, the Jamaica Labour Party.

To date only Barbados, Belize, and Guyana have replaced the Privy Council with the CCJ.

Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have failed to establish the CCJ as their final court of appeal because of continuing disagreements in both countries.

THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY

2011-11-24T16:29:00.002-05:00

THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN ... - Caribbean Court of Justice

By: The Hon. Mme. Justice Désirée P. Bernard, O.R., C.C.H. Judge, Caribbean Court of Justice

Over the past one and one half days we have been addressed about and have discussed the topic of Gender and the Law in all aspects - gender-based violence, gender and judging, human rights of victims and perpetrators of violence, equality in division of property, gender equality and international treaties as well as gender in the work-place, masculinity and violence, sentencing and access to justice. I asked myself what more was left to be said, and decided that perhaps a historical overview of earlier judicial colloquia may form a backdrop to all of the issues we have so far considered.

The last two decades have revealed increasing recognition of women's rights as human rights, no doubt facilitated by the ratification by an overwhelming number of member states of the United Nations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The effectiveness of any treaty or constitutional instrument depends in large measure on its application and interpretation. In this regard judges are strategically placed to determine such effectiveness by utilisation of international treaties in their judgments particularly in promoting and enhancing women's rights. It was recognised that the historic conservatism of the judiciary resulted in a reluctance to depart from tradition and time-honoured precedent, and a change of attitude was essential especially at the national level in order to advance the status of women.

In pursuance of this objective in 1994 the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association initiated a series of judicial colloquia on the utilisation of international human rights standards in domestic litigation. The result of this first colloquium held in Zimbabwe for senior judges of the African region was the adoption of the Victoria Falls Declaration of Principles for Promoting the Human Rights of Women. These Principles reflected the vital function of an independent judiciary to interpret and apply national constitutions and laws. One of the principles recognised that discrimination against women could be direct or indirect, and indirect discrimination requires particular scrutiny by the judiciary.

With regard to international human rights instruments the Victoria Falls Declaration recognised that these instruments have inspired many constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms, and as such they should be interpreted generously, particularly those pertaining to women in relation to discrimination. Further, it is essential to promote a culture of respect for international and regional human rights norms, and particularly those affecting women which should be applied in the domestic courts of all nations and given full effect. They ought not to be considered as alien to domestic law in national courts.

www.ccj.org/.../THE%20ROLE%20OF%20THE%20JUDICIA...

2011-07-18T13:16:00.001-05:00

FAREWELL: Outgoing CCJ president pleased regional court has silenced critics

http://www.cananews.net/

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:40:00

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – Outgoing President of the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Michael de la Bastide Friday he was satisfied that the regional court has gone a long way “towards persuading the doubting Thomases” and silencing critics about its performance.

Peter Richards

Speaking at a special sitting of the court to mark his retirement, Justice de la Bastide, 74, said that six years after the court was inaugurated, “I venture to suggest the Court’s record of performance to date suggests that it is capable of assuming the dual responsibility of interpreting and applying the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and …shaping and developing the regional jurisprudence as the final court of appeal for the English-speaking Caribbean”.

The CCJ which has both an original and appellate jurisdication, also operates as an international tribunal interpreting the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas that governs the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Single Market and Economy (CSME) and the regional integration grouping.

However while most of the countries are signatories to the original jurisdiction, only Barbados, Guyana and Belize are members of the appellate jurisdiction of the court that was established in 2001 to replace the London-based Privy Council as the region’s final court.

Justice de la Bastide, the CCJ’s first president, said that with only three countries subscribing to the court’s appellate jurisdiction, “we can hardly claim complete success in winning the confidence of peoples of CARICOM.

“I think however we have gone a significant distance towards persuading the doubting Thomases and disarming our critics. This I suggest is due to three factors.

“The first is the favourable commentaries which our judgments have for the most part received. The second is the user friendly techniques and technologies which the Court has adopted to facilitate access to it and the efficient and timely disposition of cases. The third is the growing appreciation by the public in general and lawyers in particular of the measures which the CARICOM heads of government have to their credit taken to ensure the independence of the Court.”

He said these measures are to be found in the various instruments by which the CCJ and its support bodies, the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) and the CCJ Trust Fund.

“The architecture of these bodies, their composition, powers and functions and the relationship between them, was carefully and consciously designed after consultation with important stakeholders. The primary purpose was to protect the Court from political and other extraneous influence and to give it every chance of becoming a quality court.

“The steps taken have evoked the admonition and envy of many other regional and international tribunals,” he said.

But the outgoing head of the Trinidad-based court, said he was using the opportunity of the special sitting “to warn and advise strongly against any proposal, however well intentioned, which would remove or abridge the Court’s rights in relation to its own budget in the name of correcting an alleged but illusory ‘flaw’ in the governance structure of the Court and Commission.

“In this connection I would remark in passing that I have great respect for businessmen. As they say, some of my best friends are businessmen, but the training and experience of businessmen do not equip them to identify and assess the needs of a court, far less one with two jurisdictions!

“Perhaps the point is more tellingly made in the penultimate recital in the preamble to the protocol which was agreed by the Court, the Commission and the Trustees to govern their relations,” he added.

Justice De la Bastide said before tampering “with the carefully balanced architecture of the Court and Commission, we would also do well to remember that no one has yet devised a means of insulating businessmen from political pressure”.

During his farewell speech, the outgoing CCJ president paid tribute to the people who had been instrumental in the successful operations of the court over the last six years adding that they will be fortified on September 1 by the assumption of office by the new President Sir Dennis Byron.

“They will constitute a court which in my estimation, can be relied upon to perform to a standard of excellence that can match that of any court in the Commonwealth - or indeed on this planet,” he added.

Justice de la Bastide also acknowledged the role played by the RJLSC, reiterating that “in every case, their appointment as Commissioners is free of any hint of political influence.

“ The confidence of the Heads in the independence and judgment of the Commission is attested to by the protocol to the Agreement which entrusts the Commission with the responsibility of deciding whether to extend the tenure of the President beyond the normal retirement age notwithstanding that the President is also Chairman of the Commission subject to the caveat that the Chairman shall not take part in any deliberations or decision of the Commission relating to the matter.”

Justice de la Bastide told the special sitting that he had “the good fortune as President to captain a very strong team indeed.

“That being the case, two things follow. One is that just as the captain of a weak team may escape blame for its defeat, so too the captain of a strong team must acknowledge the role of his team-mates in achieving a successful result.

“The other consequence is that the team must not be allowed to disintegrate or to deteriorate. Hence, my conviction that it would be nothing short of a tragedy for this region if the CCJ were allowed for whatever reason or by whatever means either to depart the scene altogether or to compromise the standards of excellence which it has set itself and has so far achieved.”

The outgoing CCJ president said he did not think that “future generations will easily forgive us for such a wanton waste of a unique opportunity.

“I make no apology for saying I am proud of this Court and I am comforted by the knowledge as I take my leave that it is in good hands. Naturally, I shall continue to follow its progress with great interest and attention,” he added.

2011-06-06T09:16:00.001-05:00

What’s up with the CCJ?

SOURCE: June 4, 2011 | By KNews | Filed Under Letters

Dear Editor,

There are three pressing questions that must be asked of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ): Why has it not filled its two existing vacancies?

Why is its constitutional age limit of 70 years not being enforced? And why it has never had an East Indian Justice on the court?

Collectively, these three questions represent a worrying trend that may seriously undermine the credibility of the court if they are not addressed forthwith.

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is the Caribbean regional judicial tribunal that was established on 14 February 2001. There were 10 initial members: Antigua & Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; St. Kitts & Nevis; St. Lucia; Suriname; and Trinidad & Tobago. Two other member states, Dominica and St. Vincent & The Grenadines, joined on 15 February 2003, bringing the total members to 12. he CCJ came into force on 23 July 2003, and the CCJ was inaugurated on 16 April 2005 in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago.

Currently, two of the judicial nine seats are vacant. Why is this entity that purports to represent the CARICOM region unable to seat a full court?

Are these ongoing vacancies symptomatic of the low esteem the legal profession has for this body? It is worthwhile getting an answer as to what’s up with the CCJ.

Are the constitution age limits being ignored given the apparent inability to attract a full slate of judges?

My understanding is that there is an age limit of 70 and two of the current Justices, Michael de la Bastide at 74 and Desiree Bernard at 72, are now beyond that age. Is the highest court in the region ignoring its own rules? What’s up with the CCJ?

How come there has never been an East Indian Justice on the Court? Given the East Indian majority in population in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, and the glorious legal heritage that east Indian have added to the profession via the Luckhoos, Persauds and Singhs it does beg the question why no East Indian? West Indies cricket has suffered from racial discrimination through its history which is in no small part responsible for the sport being on its death bed. Is its legal system doing the same? It would be nice to get an honest answer.

Vijay P. Kumar

2011-04-03T20:32:00.001-05:00

At the root of Caribbean disunity

by CLAUDE ROBINSON

Published by the Jamaica Observer

Sunday, April 03, 2011

UNLESS you have been too focused on the unseemly brawl between attorney KD Knight and Prime Minister Bruce Golding at the Dudus/Manatt enquiry you know that there has been sustained national outcry since Shanique Myrie revealed to this newspaper that she was the victim of an alleged cavity search that felt like a sexual assault by a female immigration official in Barbados.

The incident reportedly occurred on March 14. She also said the Immigration officer made several derogatory remarks about Jamaicans. She was refused permission to land and was returned to Jamaica on the next available flight.

SAMUDA… it makes no sense for Caribbean countries to accept and indeed to court investors from all over the world, but to resent those who take up such offers who come from elsewhere within the region

1/1

Barbadian Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Maxine McClean immediately dismissed Ms Myrie's allegations.

"There is absolutely no truth to a story carried in a Jamaican newspaper on Thursday, March 24, that a female citizen of that country was body-searched by Immigration officers on arrival at the Grantley Adams International Airport." The minister accepted a report from the chief immigration officer, after "extensive investigations" that "the claims were baseless".

By Thursday, as the controversy got extensive media and political attention across the region, the Jamaican Government despatched a team of officials to Barbados to dig deeper into the issue.

Meanwhile, the Barbadian minister appeared to be dialling back her initial assertions, suggesting that the matter must be thoroughly and calmly investigated to determine what really happened and what sanctions would be applied to anyone found to be have committed an illegal offence.

What we know at this stage is that the story told by Ms Myrie to the Observer and the story told by Barbadian Immigration officials to the foreign minister cannot both be true.

Though I am prepared to suspend final judgement until all the facts are in, it is not credible for Ms Myrie to concoct such a horrifying and humiliating story about herself. It is not the kind of notoriety that any rational person would inflict on themselves.

The specific issue is not beyond reasonable resolution. The allegations outlined by Ms Myrie are illegal under Barbadian law and I do not believe it's beyond the Royal Barbados Police to get to the truth and let the law take its course. The Jamaican woman has, quite rightly, retained counsel to protect her interests and her human rights.

But as the investigation runs its course, the controversy has again raised fundamental questions about commitment to the regional integration movement which generations of political leaders have been crafting, with limited success, for more than four decades.

Reflection of deep suspicions and mistrust

Was this an isolated incident or a reflection of deeper rifts and mistrust about the practical implementation of the various protocols and agreements about the free movement of people, capital, and goods and services?

We know that Caricom suffers from periodic skirmishes ranging from trade -- the struggle to get Jamaican patties into Trinidad is a case in point — through the upkeep and utilisation of the Caribbean Court of Justice, to immigration, as proved by the Myrie case, and recitations of story after story about mistreatment in Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago of nationals from several Caricom countries.

Addressing Parliament last Wednesday, Prime Minister Golding said the most recent Caricom heads of Government meeting heard complaints from the St Vincent prime minister that nationals from his country were mistreated when they arrived in Barbados. At a meeting prior to that, a similar complaint was made by the president of Guyana.

"There are issues that we have not addressed. The deputy prime minister will confirm that at almost every Heads of Government meeting the matter is raised," Mr Golding remarked in his statement to Parliament.

In its editorial comment on the issue Thursday, The Trinidad Express acknowledged that the twin-island republic has also been fingered in the mistreatment of Jamaicans, stating that, "Jamaica has also listed this country's airports among those in the region where its citizens have charged mistreatment by officials. This is in spite of the fact that Caricom purports to be moving towards free travel between member states."

The so-called Caricom passport is honoured more in the breach than the observance and persons in possession of valid Caricom skill certificates, which identify the holder as persons eligible to move freely throughout the region, say the document is routinely ignored by border officials.

In some instances, Immigration officials do not have the authority to honour these documents because their governments did not bother to pass the necessary enabling legislation that would give the power of law to the signed agreements.

Another underlying issue is the differences in economic development. People in Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, the two Caricom members with the most robust economies, often express concerns about 'foreigners' coming in to 'take' what rightly belongs to 'nationals'. Border officials probably reflect this mood when they encounter some Caricom nationals at points of entry.

In addition, the gap between what regional treaties say and what occurs in national practice is explained by the fact that there is no supra-national body to enforce the agreements because individual states and people have shown no inclination to give up their sovereignty, not even in part.

This is not an easy issue because no country will give up its right to make critical decisions about matters like security, border control and development strategy unless the alternative is demonstrably better than holding on to the illusion of sovereignty.

The European Union is often dangled as an example of a regional integration movement that works; but this did not happen overnight. And they still have holdouts. For example, the British have stayed out of the common Euro currency, holding on to the pound as their national currency.

In our region the benefits of integration have been slow in coming. Big inter-regional projects tend to falter. A case in point: Early in the 1970s, Jamaica's Michael Manley, Guyana's Forbes Burnham and Trinidad and Tobago's Eric Williams talked boldly and hopefully about a regional aluminium smelter using alumina from Jamaica and Guyana and energy from Trinidad. Nothing happened.

But while state-supported projects have faltered, business people at all levels are up and down the region investing and working even in the face of bureaucratic humbug. Big firms like GraceKennedy, Sagicor, and Trinidad Cement are all over the place.

This past week Karl Samuda, minister of industry, investment and commerce, was in Trinidad and Tobago wooing investors.

According to The Trinidad Express, Samuda said that "it makes no sense for Caribbean countries to accept and indeed to court investors from all over the world, but to resent those who take up such offers who come from elsewhere within the region".

At another end of the spectrum, Jamaican entertainers pull big crowds even in places where authorities show their disapproval of some of the lyrical content and on-stage profanities. And some don't get past the border.

It seems, therefore, that there is a real desire for mutually beneficial exchanges at both corporate and individual levels. But this has to be done in a context of mutual respect.

Skirmishes and squabbles are part of doing business; abuse and humiliation are not. For the most part the region is joined by commonalities of culture, language and the Caribbean Sea. The divisiveness that too often prevails over co-operation will, in all probability, disappear with time and force of circumstances. We may become more accommodating to one another as others far away become less accommodating to us.

Source: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/pfversion/At-the-root-of-Caribbean-disunity_8617864#ixzz1IVvEOQxS

2011-03-17T10:41:00.001-05:00

Leader of a UN criminal tribunal for Rwanda named next chief of Caribbean Court of Justice

Source : The Associated Press

The president of a U.N. criminal tribunal has been named chief of the Caribbean Court of Justice.

The Trinidad-based regional appeals body has issued a statement saying that St. Kitts native Dennis Byron will soon succeed retiring president Michael de la Bastide. The court said it would announce Byron's starting date later.

Byron is president of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and a former chief justice of the Eastern Caribbean appeals court.

The Caribbean Court of Justice is the highest court of appeal for several former British colonies in the Caribbean. So far, it has replaced the colonial-era British Privy Council in Barbados, Belize and Guyana.

Byron's appointment was announced Wednesday.

Jamaica’s position on CCJ scorned

2011-01-28T10:51:00.002-05:00

Jamaica’s position on CCJ scorned

Published: Friday, January 28, 2011

ST GEORGE’S, Grenada (CMC) – Prime Minister Tillman Thomas has scoffed at a suggestion by the Government of Jamaica to opt for its own final Court of Appeal instead of going the route of the Caribbean Court Of Justice (CCJ).

Thomas, who is the current chairman of Caricom, said Jamaica’s argument that there would be political interference in the CCJ did not make sense.

“What I find a bit strange about Jamaica’s position is that the argument against the CCJ is that there would be political interference. Domestically, it makes it easier for political interference,” he said.

Late last year a debate in Jamaica’s Parliament, over whether to sever ties with the British Privy Council as its final Court of Appeal, revealed that the government while agreeing to move away from the Privy Council, was proffering a Jamaica Court of Appeal over the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

This idea was sharply shot down by the opposition which called for a referendum on the issue.

Thomas said there is a need for more collective confidence in the ability of regional judges to hand down unbiased judgments.

“We in the region have competent and capable judges to man our courts,” he said.

“As a matter of fact, one of the best Courts of Appeal we have experienced in the region is the Court of Appeal in Grenada during the revolution and the revolution had its problems; but that Court of Appeal which was in Grenada was one of the most distinguished and outstanding courts in the region.”

One of the judges who served in that court is Sir Nicholas Liverpool, Dominica’s President. He served as Justice of Appeal in the Grenada Court of Appeal from 1979 to 1991.

Grenada is a signatory to the CCJ and Thomas said he believes it’s just a matter of time before the country takes steps to adopt it as its final appellate court

Dancing away from the CCJ

2010-12-29T13:02:00.001-05:00

Dancing away from the CCJ

Ex-St Lucia PM sees 'bleak future' for Caricom

Source: Jamaica Observer

Published: December 29, 2010

APPREHENSION over future leadership at the Georgetown-based Caribbean Community Secretariat has now grown to include the future of the Port-of-Spain-headquartered Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

In the case of the latter, current talk in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago to dance away from accessing the CCJ in preference for establishing their own final appeal court has drawn a sharp rebuke from Dr Kenny Anthony, a former prime minister of St Lucia. He had played a key role in the formation of the CCJ when he headed the legal division of the Community Secretariat.

There will, therefore, be no formal handing over by the retired Carrington to his successor when Caricom leaders hold their scheduled first Inter-Sessional Meeting for 2011 in Grenada in February,With the surprise decision by Edwin Carrington to step down as Caricom secretary general at the end of this month after 18 years of service, Deputy Secretary General Lolila Applewaithe will begin acting as secretary general from January 1.

A new six-month chairmanship also begins next month when host for the coming Inter-Sessional Meeting in St George's, Prime Minister Tillman Thomas takes over from his Jamaican counterpart, Bruce Golding.

While he has been quite forthcoming in articulating Caricom's support for Haiti and speaking reassuringly about regional economic integration, it is Prime Minister Golding who, within recent weeks, has further contributed to deep concerns over the future of the CCJ.

As if seeking political cover under an idea initially raised in Trinidad and Tobago -- but yet to be advocated as official policy -- Prime Minister Golding is marketing an initiative for Jamaica to replace the Privy Council in London with its own final court of appeal.

With no known appetite for the CCJ, Golding and his Jamaica Labour Party (under earlier leadership as well), have long been ducking the challenge of accessing the regional court by linking such a move with the need for a national referendum

Read that proposition to mean, basically, more faith in the competence and integrity in the British law lords of the Privy Council than the fine legal minds this region has produced across member states, and with arduous efforts to ensure appointments free from the political influences so often talked about with respect to the functioning of local judiciaries.

The situation becomes even more intriguing when it is understood that a national referendum to replace the Privy Council is not really a necessity in the case of Jamaica, as it is in countries of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.

Further, various British law lords associated with the Privy Council have been urging former British colonies, like ours in Caricom, to initiate arrangements to break the dependency syndrome on the Privy Council.

How sad, in contrast, to hear Caricom leaders like Golding and his Trinidadian counterpart, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, talking about replacing the Privy Council with their respective final appeal court.

At the same time, they steadfastly avoid encouragement to access the CCJ -- as Barbados, Guyana and Belize have done -- with a court of original jurisdiction in resolving trade disputes as well as serving as the final appellate institution of the entire community.

In St, Lucia, Dr Anthony's expression of "surprise and bewilderment" came in his response to the emerging tactics, both in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, to push the idea of a final national court of appeal without any commitment to the CCJ.

Anthony, known for his robust advocacy of development of a West Indian jurisprudence, believes that if Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago persist in spreading the notion of individual final appeal courts it would strike a "lethal blow" to the furthering of any support for the CCJ.

He is bewildered by what he views as a "disingenuous" contention to avoid political influence in the case of the CCJ. If indeed, said Anthony, the CCJ "is susceptible to political influence -- as is being claimed in Jamaica, for instance, then how much more could a Jamaican (or T&T) final appeal court be affected by political manipulations?"

The prospect, therefore, as he lamented, for realising the full benefits of creating a Caribbean Community, as envisaged by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, "is becoming bleaker and bleaker if we cannot be committed to so compelling a case for region-wide endorsement of the CCJ.

2010-12-23T13:51:00.000-05:00

PM suggests local final appeal court

BY ALICIA DUNKLEY Observer

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Source: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/PM-suggests-local-final-appeal-court_8249600#ixzz18xjUriTB

PRIME Minister Bruce Golding yesterday raised the possibility of Jamaica establishing its own final appeal court as an option to the London-based Privy Council or the controversial Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), but held that his administration still believed that any decision on the matter must be put to a referendum.

"We wish to consider our own final court of appeal. We would respectfully wish that is something for which due consideration to be given," Golding said while closing debate in the Parliament on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which will replace Chapter III of the present Constitution.

"It is something we wish to consider in great detail and in earnest. We believe we have the judicial experience, we believe we have the maturity to do it," Golding said.

The prime minister raised the point while rejecting suggestions from the Opposition People's National Party that the matter of a final appellate court should be settled along with the passage of the Charter. According to Golding, his administration had always held that "the adoption of a final court should be put to Jamaicans in a referendum".

"Take it to the people and let the people decide," he said. Pointing out that there were members of both the Government and Opposition in favour of the CCJ as the final court, Golding said "I don't think any of us in here must ever make the mistake of presuming that there is any consensus among the people of Jamaica on this, nor must we ever seek to assume that the majority of those people will vote in a particular way".

"If what we are depending on is a consensus among us that we go to the people and say both the JLP and PNP are urging you to vote in particular way after all the years of discussion and debate on this matter, what would that say to us? That it is political mobilisation," he added.

The prime minister's insistence followed on the contribution of Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller who said while her party had "always been anxious to support any step to move the process forward so that all citizens of Jamaica will begin to enjoy a wider span of fundamental rights", the matter of the adoption of the CCJ as the final court should also be settled.

"It would be good if it could be settled while our prime minister is chair of Caricom," she said. "Shame and embarrassment should drive us to do everything in our power to avoid a repeat of the authorities in Britain advising us that we have overstayed our welcome. Prime Minister, the Privy Council is asking us to leave, have we no shame? We will not rest in our push for the CCJ to become our final Court of Appeal."

Simpson Miller said that if this was not done, the debate on the Charter of Rights would signify nothing.

In a response which very nearly caused the House to descend into another of its by now familiar rows, Golding insisted "it is not our understanding that if you don't get the CCJ you can't get the Charter of Rights. That is something that remains on the table of discussion. I have indicated that the views of this side are not inflexible. We agree with the Opposition that ...we have to dispense with the Privy Council. We are not yet satisfied that in doing so we must... replace it with something else whose existence is not within (our control)".

Source: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/PM-suggests-local-final-appeal-court_8249600#ixzz18xiQmNo5

2010-12-01T14:52:00.002-05:00

CCJ to hear first Belize appeal on Monday

by Global News Staff

Source: Caribbean News Now

Published on November 26, 2010

BELMOPAN, Belize -- The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will hear the first appeal from Belize on Monday, and it will be an appeal that has regional interest and perhaps will create Caribbean jurisprudence, since it involves misfeasance or alleged misconduct by government ministers.

The appeal was filed by two ex-ministers of government, Florencio Marin, Sr. and Joe Coye, after the current Dean Barrow administration took them to court for nearly a million dollars in damages as part of a misfeasance lawsuit.

The Belize government initiated the suit against the two former ministers for $924,056, which the attorney general claimed government had lost in the sale of 56 acres of land.

Former Chief Justice Abdul Conteh dismissed the government's case after he raised a technical question of whether the government was pursuing the right kind of claim against the former ministers.

The former chief justice ruled that the attorney general cannot file a misfeasance action in the Supreme Court, but could have pursued the route of filing a malfeasance claim for criminal sanctions in the Magistrate's Court.

The attorney general successfully appealed to the Belize Court of Appeal, which ordered that the Supreme Court hear and determine the case filed by the government.

The two former ministers then appealed to the CCJ, which has replaced the Privy Council as the final court for Belize.

The appellants’ attorneys, as well as lawyers for the respondents (the Belize government), had a pretrial hearing via teleconference.

The president of the CCJ, Michael de la Bastide, is reported in the Amandala newspaper as saying, "I think this is a matter of great public importance -- that is whether the members of a government which has replaced by another government are liable to be sued by the attorney general on behalf of the state for loss which they have allegedly caused the state by their misconduct -- or their misfeasance to use the technical word -- while they were in office."

"This is a matter that I am sure is not only of great importance (I would have thought) to the people of Belize, but indeed to the people of this region," he added.

He noted that a CCJ ruling "...would be describing what the law is finally for a least some of the countries in CARICOM" and particularly for Barbados and Guyana, which are the only other two nations to have accepted the CCJ's full appellate jurisdiction.

Four Belizean lawyers will travel to Port of Spain for Monday's hearing.

Dr Elson Kaseka and Magali Marin-Young are appearing for the ex-ministers, while Lois Young SC and senior crown counsel Nigel Hawke of Guyana will represent the attorney general of Belize.

It is understood that the entire panel will sit to hear this important appeal: President de la Bastide, Justices Jacob Wit, Desiree Bernard, Adrian Saunders and Rolston Nelson.

2010-09-10T10:18:00.002-05:00

Caribbean court of justice: a model for international courts?

Five-year-old CCJ has been praised for its process of selecting independent, high-quality judges

Source: Philip Dayle guardian.co.uk,

Published: Friday 10 September 2010

A book by UCL professors examining how judges are chosen for international courts has been getting a lot of attention recently. One of the authors has praised the process of selecting judges for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) – a supra-national court serving the Caribbean.

Professor Kate Malleson names the CCJ's external selection body – called the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) – as a model for identifying independent and high-quality judicial candidates.

Born of a fear of political interference, the commission is chaired by the CCJ's president and consists of legal and non-legal persons, as well as members of civil society from different Caribbean member states. The court's bid to be independent of governments is bolstered by the fact that it is wholly financed through a trust fund, from money raised on international markets.

Structurally, the CCJ is an interesting hybrid. It is both a final appellate court for criminal and civil cases and the tribunal that resolves treaty disputes between member states. As an appellate court, it replaces appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council. The privy council was previously the UK supreme court, hearing matters as the final appellate authority, and still hears appeals from British territories, dependencies and some Commonwealth countries.

Though most of the CCJ judges previously sat at a national level, at least one member of the panel is required to be an expert in international law. This has favoured legal academics, particularly those with experience working with the Caribbean community (Caricom) system. One judge is also required to be from the civil law tradition, reflecting the presence of civil law jurisdictions such as Suriname and Haiti.

Unlike the international criminal court (ICC), the CCJ selection system does not include prescriptions to ensure gender balance or quotas for country representation. Judicial vacancies are advertised and suitably qualified candidates may apply.

As the two countries that have notoriously held off on submitting to the CCJ as a final court of appeal, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica each currently boast citizens on the CCJ's seven-member panel. In the five years since the inception of the CCJ, only one woman has been appointed to sit as a judge.

Tracy Robinson, senior lecturer in the law faculty at the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill in Barbados, is not persuaded that this system ensures sufficient diversity: "In the absence of explicit provisions, I hope the under-representation of women on the court is directly addressed by the Service Commission [and] taken into account in the appointment of new judges". Early fears that the CCJ was set up by Caribbean governments to be the "hanging court", as the antidote to the privy council's supposed hostility towards the death penalty, has not materialised. In one of its first decisions, the court upheld a challenge to the death penalty, arguably in the liberal tradition of the privy council. Court watchers such as Robinson believe that the true test for the CCJ will come in civil liberties cases in areas other than the death penalty. It's in producing a range of these decisions, she argues, that the court is likely to establish itself as an authoritative voice in the region.

Maybe it's too early to judge the judges of the CCJ. The absence of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago has led to a paltry case load for a court that is hugely expensive to maintain. And without more robust public interest lawyering or arguing novel questions of law, the true mettle of the CCJ has not been tested. The jury is out on whether the court will be transformative in developing the jurisprudence of the region.

2010-08-31T10:50:00.000-05:00

Kamla wants to opt out of Carib court

Carib Wise Men urge Kamla to go easy on CCJ

By Bert Wilkinson

Published: Monday, August 30, 2010

Source: Caribbean Life News

In recent days, Kamla Persad-Bissesar, Trinidad and Tobago’s new head of government has given strong signals that that her People’s Partnership administration is unhappy with the high costs of hosting and maintaining the five-year-old Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and may take the issue of the country becoming a CCJ member to referendum.

The prime minister’s announcement, as she reviews decisions made by the past Patrick Manning administration, has sent political shock waves across the region, forcing some of its most prominent citizens or so-called “Wise Men” to urge authorities there not to take “retrogressive steps.”

They interpret her signals as retrogression because they fear a referendum could threaten the very existence of a court that was designed to replace British Privy Council as the region’s final court of appeal, a dream of several independence Caribbean leaders like Burnham, Williams and Manley.

As it stands now, only Guyana, Barbados and most recently Belize, subscribe to the CCJ as their final court of arbitration.

Its ironical that host, Trinidad,is not counted among them, nor is Jamaica and the smaller Eastern Caribbean sub-grouping. These either claim the need for referenda or the requirement of a two-thirds parliamentary vote to abandon the British, or both.

Persad-Bissesar’s recent remarks have also induced Opposition Leader Keith Rowley to come to the defense of the court and to defend the previous decision to lobby for Port of Spain as its headquarters.

“For the PNM, this is an issue of principle, not opportunism,” he said, pointing to the need for the region to complete its independence rather than having jurists far away in England determining the fate of regional citizens.

Ironically as well, the court was established while the prime minister’s predecessor and party leader, Basdeo Panday, was at the helm of government, but it seems as though the future of the court is being rendered as uncertain by the approach of the new administration.

The result as the Barbados Nation reported at the weekend, is that prominent Caribbean citizens: Sir George Alleyne, former head of the Pan American Health Organization, Sir Shridath Ramphal, former three-term Commonwealth secretary general and ex-Guyana foreign minister, retired Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, past CARICOMSecretary General Sir Alister McIntyre and Dominica’s President Nicholas Liverpool,have all banded together to issue a statement urging Trinidad to think again.

“We wish particularly to correct the inference that Trinidad and Tobago is carrying a disproportionate cost of the CCJ,” the regional “Wise Men” said in a joint release,noting that a regional trust fund was set up by leaders and framers to finance operations of the court, including judges’ salaries.

Trade-bloc member states are responsible for fundingspecific portions of the court’s costs, based on agreed criteria that includes GDP and population size.

Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for US$36.1M, Jamaica for US$28.7M, Barbados for US$13.5 M and Guyana for US$8.8M. The smaller Eastern islands and Belize are asked to come up with US$2.2M each.

The group also called for calm, saying that “any attempt to create a climate of hostility to the court by distortions in the country of the court’s location is serious in itself. When it is accompanied by suggestions of creating a national court of appeal in place of the CCJ, the implications for the people of the Caribbean, including Trinidad and Tobago, become stark and troubling,” they said as debate in Trinidad builds.

2010-08-29T19:00:00.001-05:00

Rowley renews call to PP Govt:

Replace Privy Council with CCJ

Published: 28 Aug 2010

Source: Trinidad Guardian

Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley is renewing a call for the People’s Partnership (PP) Government to support the removal of the Privy Council as this country’s final court of appeal. He said T&T should honour its original promise to have the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final court of appeal. The CCJ is headquartered in Port-of-Spain. Rowley made the call in his message to mark the observance of this country’s 48 anniversary of independence on Tuesday.

The CCJ was established to replace the Privy Council as the Caribbean’s final appellate court. Under then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, T&T had committed to accepting the CCJ as its final court of appeal but when his government lost power, there was a change of heart. Rowley said independence must mean more than giving national political independence. He said independence should also mean that nationals must be responsible for interpreting the laws of the land and arbitrating on issues impartially. “Independence must also mean giving full responsibility for this to nationals,” he added.

He said T&T had reneged on a promise to have the CCJ replace the Privy Council as the nation’s final court of appeal. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said recently that the people of T&T must decide via a referendum whether the CCJ would replace the Privy Council. Rowley said the politicians were “not more committed to the development of T&T than our jurists. To so imply is to cast an unwarranted slur on them.” He said accepting the CCJ as the country’s final court of appeal was long overdue. “For the PNM, this is an issue of principle, not opportunism,” he added. The CCJ was inaugurated in 2005 and also has an original jurisdiction. Guyana, Belize, Barbados and St Lucia have replace the Privy Council with the CCJ as their final court of appeal.

Dr. Archibald Re-Appointed to Caricom Regional Judicial & Legal Services Commission

2010-08-24T10:48:00.001-05:00

Source: Virgin Island, Platinum News

Published August 24, 20010

Dr Joseph S. Archibald QC of St Kitts Nevis and the British Virgin Islands has been re-appointed for a second three-year term from 20 August 2010 as a Member of the Caricom Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission ( "the Commission") according to a letter dated 13 August 2010 from The Right Honourable Mr Justice de la Bastide TC, QC, the Chief Justice of the Caribbean Court of Justice in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Caricom Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Commission.

The Commission appoints the Judges, and recommends the appointment of the Chief Justice, of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Members of the Commission, when travelling in the Caricom Region on Commission business, are granted privileges and immunities similar to those granted to Supreme Court Judges.

Dr Archibald was jointly nominated by the Organisation of Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Associations and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States Bar Association as required by the said Caricom Agreement.

Dr Archibald is an International Lawyer who was Called to the Bar as a Barrister of Lincoln´s Inn in England fifty years ago in 1960 with a special Certificate in International Law; was appointed a Queen´s Counsel of the British Commonwealth thirty years ago in 1980; is a Member of the London Court of International Arbitrators; and is one of the three Patron Members of the Washington-based World Jurist Association.

Press Release - August 4, 2010

2010-08-05T10:38:00.002-05:00

SECRETARY-GENERAL CARRINGTON STEPS DOWN AT YEAR END

His Excellency Edwin Carrington, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has notified the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community of his decision to step down from his position, effective 31 December 2010.

Mr. Carrington, a national of Trinidad and Tobago was appointed in 1992 - the sixth Secretary-General of the Community. He succeeded Mr. Roderick Rainford of Jamaica.

“It has been my privilege and honour to have been given the opportunity to serve the Region and its people in this capacity” said Mr. Carrington.

“These last 18 years as Secretary-General have been the pinnacle of my public service career. I have, despite the odds, done all I could to help create a viable and secure Community for All. It has been a period of important achievements as well as significant disappointments. I leave satisfied and confident however, that the Caribbean Community now has a solid platform on which to continue to build the integration movement,” the Secretary-General said

“I am looking forward to the opportunity to deal with some pressing family issues and to enjoy much more time with them. I pay them the highest tribute for their patience, understanding and tremendous support during this long and arduous journey”, Mr. Carrington added.

During his tenure, Mr. Carrington oversaw the revision of the Treaty of Chaguaramas and the consequent transition of the Community from a Common Market to a Single Market in 2006. Under his Secretary-Generalship, the platform is also being set for eventual evolution of the Community to include a Single Economy - the framework for which Heads of Government have undertaken to create by 2015. Mr. Carrington’s term has also seen the establishment of a number of key institutions designed to put the integration process on a sound base, including the CCJ - Caribbean Court of Justice (2005); as well as CROSQ - the Caribbean Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality (2002); the CCCCC - Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (2005); the CCC - CARICOM Competition Commission (2008); and the CDF – CARICOM Development Fund (2008).

Mr. Carrington, an economist by profession, first joined the then Commonwealth Caribbean Secretariat in 1970 as Chief of Economics and Statistics, rising to Director of Trade and Integration before being appointed as Deputy Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States in 1976. He was subsequently elected Secretary-General of the ACP in 1985, the only Caribbean national, to date, to have held that position. In acknowledgement of his outstanding service to the ACP, Carrington Hall at the ACP Secretariat (Brussels) is named in his honour.

On returning from Brussels in 1991, Mr. Carrington served as his country’s High Commissioner to Guyana before his appointment to his current position. Carrington is the longest serving Secretary-General of the Community in the service of which he has been the recipient of national awards from Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago as well as from the Dominican Republic, Italy and Spain.

As Secretary-General of CARICOM, Mr. Carrington also served as Secretary-General of CARIFORUM (comprising all the Member States of CARICOM except Montserrat and comprising the Dominican Republic).

2010-08-04T09:38:00.001-05:00

EVERYDAY LAW – Prerogative of mercy - Print Version

By: Cecil McCarthy

Source: Nation News

Published: August 4, 2010

IN LAST week’s article I discussed the doctrine of legitimate expectation as applied by the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of Attorney General and others v Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Boyce (“Joseph and Boyce”).

I will be returning to the subject of legitimate expectation in future articles.

However, in today’s column I wish to discuss the other significant issue that arose for determination in Joseph and Boyce; that issue is whether the prerogative of mercy by the Barbados Privy Council was subject to judicial review having regard to section 77(4) of the Barbados Constitution which provides as follows:

“The question whether the Privy Council has validly performed any function vested in it by the Constitution shall not be inquired into by any court.”

Charged jointly

In Joseph and Boyce, the facts were that Joseph and Boyce and two other men were charged jointly with the murder of a young man who was beaten to death. The four accused were given the option of pleading guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter.

The other accused opted to plead guilty of manslaughter. Joseph and Boyce refused this offer and stood trial for murder, and were both convicted and sentenced to death. Their appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council were dismissed.

They petitioned the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, alleging that Barbados violated its obligations under the American Convention of Human Rights.

Soon after the petitions were filed, the Barbados Privy Council (the body charged with the responsibility of advising the Governor General on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy) confirmed a previous decision not to recommend commutation of their sentence.

As a result, death warrants were read to Joseph and Boyce who then began proceedings alleging that the threatened execution was in contravention of their constitutional rights.

The CCJ held unanimously that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was reviewable notwithstanding Section 77(4) of the Constitution referred to above.

One of the bases for review of the prerogative of mercy was procedural unfairness, which in the court’s view, was established in the case of Joseph and Boyce.

In the Third Edition of his book Commonwealth Caribbean Public Law, Professor Albert Fiadjoe of the University of the West Indies commented on the CCJ’s decision in respect of the reviewability of the prerogative of mercy in the following terms:

“This decision thus puts the nail in the argument which prevailed in 1966 when the Barbados Constitution became law – namely, that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was not judicially reviewable, and that ousting the jurisdiction of the court could be valid.

“Thus, the Constitution would have been premised on the orthodox view that there was no possibility of the court’s powers under section 24 being applicable to any exercise of the prerogative of mercy, which was the exclusive preserve of the Governor General acting as directed by the Barbados Privy Council.

“But the court now says as did the Privy Council in Neville Lewis that, in the light of modern developments, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is judicially reviewable and is not ousted by Section 77(4).”

Section 77(4) is an example of what is referred to as an “ouster clause”, a clause which seeks to exclude the court from reviewing the exercise of some power by a state body or official.

The response of the CCJ was that it will not be deterred, like previous decisions of the courts, by the presence of such a clause from inquiring into whether a body has performed its function in breach of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and in particular the right to procedural fairness.

The decision of the CCJ is very important for “death penalty jurisprudence”. It gives a condemned man another lifeline, which can be of great significance when one considers the strict five-year time-line that has been established by the decision in Pratt and Morgan.

•Cecil McCarthy is a Queen’s Counsel. Send your letters to: Everyday Law, The Nation, Fontabelle, St Michael. Send your email to cnmc@caribsurf.com

2010-07-11T13:51:00.002-05:00

Don’t blame the people for the Caribbean’s failures

Source: The Voice SLU

Publication Date: June 10, 2010

Some leaders of countries of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) often suggest that the slow progress of regional integration is due to a lack of “trust and understanding” among the people.

Certainly this was a view expressed by Bruce Golding, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, at the opening of the 31st CARICOM Heads of Government Conference in Jamaica. Interestingly Golding also said that integration also requires “building trust and understanding” among the leaders themselves.

He is right on both counts. But, if the people of CARICOM countries lack trust and understanding of the benefits of regional integration, the blame lies with the leaders.

Over the last 20 years of CARICOM’s existence, the people of the region have been fed a regular diet of CARICOM bashing in the media. That bashing was – and is – conducted by CARICOM leaders. The media simply report it.

Instead of resolving trade disputes at the table of quiet diplomacy, government representatives choose to amplify them with heated exchanges through the media, creating the impression that CARICOM’s trade arrangements don’t work fairly. Yet, the CARICOM Treaty provides for the amicable settlement of disputes through consultation with recourse to the Caribbean Court of Justice only a last resort.

New governments in CARICOM do not appear to be immune from the virus of injudicious public statements. Thus, the new Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kamla Persaud-Bissessar, declared publicly that her country was not an “ATM machine” from which other CARICOM countries could draw money as they want it.

Such statements would not endear Trinidad and Tobago to the rest of the CARICOM countries, nor would it encourage citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to regard other CARICOM citizens with anything but contempt.

In reality, the relationship between Trinidad and Tobago and other CARICOM countries, particularly the smaller nations of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), is far more mutually beneficial than is conveyed by the analogy of the “ATM machine”. Other CARICOM countries are a lucrative and protected market for Trinidad and Tobago’s manufactured products and financial services under the CARICOM Treaty. Were it not for their membership of CARICOM, these countries could purchase most of what they buy from Trinidad and Tobago at cheaper prices elsewhere in the world.

Barbados, too, benefits significantly from the export of goods and services to CARICOM. It is Bardados largest area for exports. This is one of the reasons why the Barbados government was concerned with the intention of the previous Patrick Manning government in Trinidad and Tobago to forge an economic union with the members of the OECS.

The point is that membership of CARICOM is not a one-way street, nor indeed is it a one-way street only for the marketing of goods and services. Of equal importance is the bargaining strength which collective negotiations in the international community bring to each of the countries individually.

But, little credit is given to the benefits of regional cooperation. It is seldom, if at all, mentioned by governments in their parliaments or in their media conferences.

The impression left in the minds of the people is that CARICOM is a useless organisation that brings no benefit to them, and that they would be better off shedding it and dealing with the world on their own.

Of course, leaders know better.

That is why none of them have abandoned CARICOM, and more recent leaders, such as Bruce Golding, have significantly altered the almost hostile attitude to CARICOM with which they started out.

There are a multitude of crucial matters that CARICOM countries cannot manage on their own and for which each of them needs to be bolstered by the collective effort of all. Dealing with drug trafficking is one example. There are myriad others such as coping with the effects of natural disasters and bargaining with the international community.

Serious observers within the Caribbean and many more, including governments and international financial institutions, had hoped that the recent summit would address two matters with the gravity and urgency they deserved and so reinvigorate regional integration and reignite interest – if not passion – for it among the Caribbean people and the wider world.

The first is the twin issues of governance and implementation of decisions by CARICOM. Having laboured over the matter since 1992 when the West Indian Commission recommended the creation of a Caribbean Commission (similar to the European Union Commission), leaders pondered it yet again at the Jamaica meeting only to appoint a fifth group to consider the matter and report in February of next year. This new group consists of seven Heads of Government – all of whom are busy with the demands of their domestic constituencies. They are to be advised by a technical group who will have to be miraculously inspired to generate anything more sound than the numerous studies already produced on this matter.

What is certain is that the leaders do not want a Caribbean Commission similar to the European Commission. They have said so. It is reported that they are toying with the idea of a Council of Ambassadors similar to the weak mechanism adopted by the members of the OECS in their yet to be operationalised Economic Union Treaty. Such a mechanism – nationalistic in its composition and representation – would be nothing more than a further layer of delay in decision-making. It would have to await the consent of the most reluctant country to proceed.

The second issue on which urgent action was reasonably expected from the Jamaica summit was a plan to recover from the global financial and economic crisis.

A flame of hope flickered momentarily when the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn, “agreed to review the issue of special and differential treatment” for Caribbean’s small states.

But, no CARICOM government alone and not all of them collectively can turn Strauss-Khan’s “review” to “commitment”. CARICOM requires the best brains in government, the private sector, the trade union movement and the academic community from throughout the region to devise a plan that could command international respect and action.

It would have been hugely beneficial if the Conference had mandated the assembly of such a Caribbean team under a High Representative (otherwise known as a Commissioner) tasked to produce a plan using as a basis the work of three separate task forces that governments commissioned over the last year. Alas, this did not happen.

The people of the Caribbean remain caught in a long tunnel of stagnation with no end in sight. They should not be blamed for the region’s failures.

2010-06-17T11:02:00.002-05:00

EDITORIAL- Mr Golding and the CCJ

Published: Thursday | June 17, 2010

Source: Jamaica Gleaner

It is perhaps more than symbolic that the Jamaican authorities had no objection that Governor General Sir Patrick Allen this week administered the oath of office to Professor Winston Anderson as a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), and that Prime Minister Bruce Golding spoke in appreciative, though measured, terms of the performance of the CCJ in its five years.

The decisions of the court, Mr Golding said, had inspired confidence and the justices in their rulings had "sought to lay a foundation on which the future of the court can be built".

If we are right, Mr Golding's posture had to do with more than the fact that Justice Anderson, until lately the executive director of the Caribbean Law Institute in Barbados, is a Jamaican of whom the prime minister is understandably proud.

It seems likely that Mr Golding will at next month's summit of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders indicate that his government has completed its re-evaluation of Jamaica's absence from the court and is now ready to begin to plan its accession. That is the difficult bit.

Vehement opposition

The governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), under Golding's leadership and before, used to be vehemently opposed to the CCJ in its role as the court of last resort in criminal and civil matters.

Although they did not always express it this frankly, an underlying theme of those who opposed the court was mistrust for the moral fibre and the intellectual and jurisprudential acumen of regional judges. The more openly expressed concern, however, was for the independence of the CCJ, which the party continued to advance even after it was clear that the court was insulated against political intrusions.

Mr Golding's party guided a successful constitutional challenge at the Privy Council against Jamaica's participation in the CCJ as was then contemplated. The PM, though, would have had his mind concentrated by last October's complaint by Lord Nicholas Phillips, the chief justice of Britain's new Supreme Court, that Privy Council cases occupied too much of the time of his judges. He hinted at farming out some of these cases to judges of lower courts.

The JLP's retreat from its former positions may cause Mr Golding political discomfiture. More problematic, however, is how he manages the accession to the CCJ - assuming this is the course being contemplated - given the Privy Council's ruling that the CCJ first has to be constitutionally entrenched before it can be a superior court to Jamaica's Court of Appeal. This would require special parliamentary majorities and, ultimately, a referendum.

Standing Parliamentary committee

That seems doable. The People's National Party's is supposed to be a strong supporter of the CCJ, which it had a major hand in fashioning when it formed the government. But strange things happen in politics.

Which is why we repeat our suggestion for the establishment of a standing parliamentary committee on security, legal and justice matters, through which there can be constant cross-party dialogue on critical issues - including the CCJ. Additionally, there is probably the need for a summit between Mr Golding and Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller to start to thaw the political freeze that has continued for too long.

Additionally, Mr Golding should unveil any new thinking on the CCJ to the Jamaican people before he takes it to CARICOM.

2010-05-27T12:34:00.002-05:00

On The Other Hand - Mandatory death penalty

Published on: 5/23/2010. Source: Nation News

BY PETER LAURIE

LET'S CLEAR UP some misconceptions about Barbados' mandatory imposition of the deathpenalty for murder and the Inter-American Courtof Human Rights.

First, the facts.

The American Convention On Human Rights hastwo competent organs to ensure that the provisions of the convention are respected: the commission,which investigates alleged abuses of human rights,and the court, which is the authoritative interpreterof the convention.

Barbados signed the convention in 1978, ratifiedit in 1982, and accepted the jurisdiction of the court in 2000, thereby undertaking to abide by the convention and the court's rulings.

Article 4 of the convention states that "every person has the right to have his life respected . . . .No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life".

Nevertheless, Article 4 allows states parties that have maintained the death penalty to apply it, subject to certain restrictions.

The issue between the court and Barbados, however, is not the death penalty.

The issue is the finding of the commission, agreed to by the court in a landmark judgment in June 2002, that mandatory imposition of the death penalty for murder constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life and is therefore a violation of Article 4.

The argument of the commission and court, whether you agree with it or not, is straightforward and reflects a growing international consensus.

They maintain that because execution of the death penalty is irreversible, the state imposing the penalty must observe the strictest and most rigorous application of judicial guarantees to ensure those guarantees are not violated and a human life is not arbitrarily taken as a result. The mere existenceof these guarantees in a state is not enough.

One must be satisfied that the standards of these laws are rigorously applied in each and every case.

And here is the crux of the issue. The mandatory imposition of the death penalty on each individual guilty of murder "treats all persons convictedof a designated offence not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the death penalty".

Moreover, the judge is robbed of all discretionas to whether the death penalty is the appropriate punishment or not in the specific circumstancesof both the act and the offender. The judge is mandated to impose the death penalty, thus excluding both the possibility of determining individualized sentences arising from mitigating circumstances, and of creating a rational and proportional relation between the offender, the crime and the punishment.

Consequently the commission and the court have held that the imposition of the mandatory death penalty in such circumstances renders it an inhuman and unjust punishment, constituting a violationof Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2), and 8(1) in relationto Article 1(1) of the convention.

Ironically, the mandatory imposition of the death penalty has led juries in the Caribbean occasionallyto acquit offenders accused of murder, even whenthere was a preponderance of evidence in favourof guilt, because jurors considered death to bean excessive punishment in the circumstances of the particular case.

Another irony is that if we did not havein our Constitution the "savings clause" that protects inhumane, colonial, laws from constitutional challenge, our own courts would undoubtedly find mandatory imposition of the death penalty unconstitutional.

The Government of Barbados has a choice:

Do the right thing, abolish mandatory sentencing and trust in the wisdom of our judges to imposethe appropriate sentence.

This will preserve Barbados' international reputation as a sophisticated, enlightened democracy fully observant of human rights - an invaluable asset in a country seeking to be a global centrefor tourism and international business.

Or do the ignoble thing, listen to the yahoosamong us, denounce the convention and make Barbados look like some poor-rakey turd-worldstate insecure in its sovereignty.

* Peter Laurie is a retired diplomatand a commentator on social issues.

2010-05-12T11:48:00.002-05:00

Belize to join Caribbean Court of Justice, leave colonial-era British Privy Council

Date Published May 11, 2010

Source - Associated Press

(AP) — The government of Belize says it will stop sending appeals cases to the colonial-era British Privy Council starting June 1.

The order announced by the office of Prime Minister Dean Barrow brings Belize's appeals processes into line with the country's constitution.

The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice will hear all Belize court appeals filed after May 31.

Barrow's office said Tuesday the change is "a major landmark" for the nation.

The London-based Privy Council long served as the highest court of appeal for many former British colonies. But many of those nations are removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the council, which is made up of members of Britain's House of Lords.

2010-04-08T12:20:00.000-05:00

CCJ dismisses TCL contempt filing against Guyana

Source Stabroek staff Published : April 1, 2010 |

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Monday dismissed contempt proceedings against Guyana filed by Trinidad Cement Limited (TCL) and a subsidiary company, which arose last year when this country failed to reinstate the CET on extra-regional cement following an order of the court.

When its judgment was read, the CCJ also dismissed the claims for orders relating to civil contempt against Attorney General, Charles Ramson SC. The CCJ held that it had no jurisdiction to make any such finding against Guyana, but it also noted that no claim for such a finding of contempt against this country had been made either in the original or amended application of the applicants; TCL and its subsidiary, TCL Guyana Incorporated (TGI).

In its ruling, the CCJ said the oral claim against Guyana was not properly raised and so it was not entertained. However, it was noted that on January 8, 2010, almost four months after the grace period fixed by the Order had expired, Guyana reinstated the CET in respect of all non-CARICOM cement imported here. The CCJ did grant a declaration that Guyana was in breach of Article 215 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which mandates CARICOM member states to comply with judgments of the CCJ promptly.

With respect to the claims against the Attorney General, the Court ruled a coercive order should not be made against someone who is not a party to the proceedings. It said there was no evidence that the AG here was personally responsible for the breach of the Order, or that the AG, as a non-party, was responsible in his official capacity for the reinstatement and maintenance of the CET on cement from non-CARICOM sources.

TCL had applied for leave to amend its application to include a claim for the declaration that Guyana was in breach of Article 215 and the Court granted leave after Guyana had no objections. Counsel for Guyana later resisted the claim, saying that since the amendment had only been granted after the Order of August 20, 2009 had been complied with, the question of whether Guyana was in breach of Article 215 was academic. Counsel argued that Courts were reluctant to grant declarations that served no useful purpose.

In breach

Trinidad and Tobago, in its submissions as a State Party invited to join the discussion, accepted that the Court could find a State Party to be in breach of obligations in Article 215 to comply with the Court’s judgment promptly. The CCJ found that there was ample evidence that Guyana did not comply promptly, noting that this country’s application for an extension of time for compliance with the Order was an admission that it had not complied.

In its submissions, Guyana had contended that the Order of Court was “not without some indicative element of equivocation.” Counsel for Guyana had argued that it was not the Order that re-imposed the CET. Counsel said also that the Order left Guyana free to “implement” or “complete” the CET and to “maintain” the CET “only from that date,” i.e. the date of reinstatement. But the Court said this was disingenuous, pointing to a November 13, 2009 case management conference where counsel for Guyana conceded that the country was in breach and continued to be in breach of the Order by restricting the application of the CET to imports of non-CARICOM cement ordered after October 15, 2009. The Court said its emphasis was on cement imported and CET collected after September 17, 2009 and it held that there was no ambiguity in the Order and that Guyana’s breach of it was unlawful.

The case against Guyana raised significant issues and triggered an interesting discussion at the level of the Court; it also resulted in critical submissions from Trinidad and Tobago, after an invitation was extended to state parties to make written and oral submissions on the question of civil contempt of Court issues.

What emerged from the discussions was that there is need for a protocol amending the Revised Treaty, to make clear what forms of contempt the Court can deal with and what sanctions it can impose on those whom it holds in contempt. In the interim, the Court said it will express only provisional views on such matters in the hope that “the difficulties of interpretation which emerge will be eliminated by an appropriate protocol to the Revised Treaty.”

The Court pointed to several questions which arose during its deliberations and out of the submissions canvassed before the court. It questioned what is the meaning of “contempt of court” in the context of Article 26 of the CCJ Agreement and whether the agreement give the Court jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for civil contempt. The Court also pondered, among other issues what impact, if any, does municipal legislation incorporating the CCJ Agreement have on the jurisdiction of the Court.

No inherent jurisdiction

The concept of civil contempt (disobedience of court orders) as an affront to the court is not known in the civil law and the question arose as to whether civil contempt exists in international law. The Court said that even though civil contempt was unknown to international law, states may confer that power on a tribunal by agreement. The CCJ noted in his judgment that ‘contempt of court’ is a common law concept that has no equivalent in the civil law system. It stated that even if the civil contempt of court were recognized, on the international plane it is evident that the common law concept of contempt of court must undergo some metamorphosis if it is to operate in a different setting “within the basic structure of the international community.” It said further, that in non-criminal cases the common law sanctions for contempt of court, i.e. (1) imprisonment; (2) sequestration; and (3) fines, may have to be adapted to take account of the fact that the states are the defendants and cannot be imprisoned, and that regional international courts, have no tipstaff or goals except where treaties provide so.

The CCJ continued: “When one transplants civil contempt of court into the international arena among nation states, the primary sanction is a declaratory finding of contempt or non-compliance with the Court’s order.” It noted in the result that such a declaration is similar to the one available under Article 215 of the Revised Treaty (where the obligation is to comply promptly).

However, the CCJ found that no express power to entertain contempt proceedings is granted in Article 26 of the CCJ agreement. Further, it pointed out that one could not extrapolate from the ad hoc international criminal tribunal cases that international courts have an inherent jurisdiction in civil contempt in non-criminal cases.

The CCJ panel included Justices Michael de la Bastide, who is the President of the Court, together with Justice Nelson; Justice Saunders; Justice Wit and Justice Hayton.

The applicants were represented by Dr C Denbow, SC appearing with D Denbow, D Rohlehr and K De Freitas; the respondent by Kamal Ramkarran and Trinidad and Tobago by Douglas Mendes SC along with M Quamina, E Pierre, G Jankey and S Ramhit.

Professor Anderson to replace Justice Duke Pollard

2010-03-30T11:28:00.002-05:00

Jamaican appointed Judge in CCJ

Source: Kaieteur News

MARCH 30, 2010

…as Justice Duke Pollard retires

By Oscar Ramjeet

The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) has appointed a Jamaican as the newest judge in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

He is Professor Charles Anderson, an academic who replaces Guyanese Justice Duke Pollard, who goes into retirement on June 10 next, when the new judge will assume duties.

Justice Anderson is the first Jamaican to be appointed to the regional court. The omission of a judge from Jamaica, the most populated in the Anglophone Caribbean, has been criticized, especially since that country contributes 27 per cent of the costs to run and administer the Court.

Former Attorney General of Jamaica, Dr. Osward Harding, who is now the President of the Senate, had indicated to me two years ago that several highly qualified Jamaicans, including a few outstanding Senior Counsel were overlooked five years ago.

Now that that a Jamaican has been appointed as a Judge, one wonders if this will accelerate the powers to be in Kingston to join the Appellate Division of the Court.

Justice Pollard’s appointment in the regional court was criticised in some quarters since he was never in active law practice, never served as an advocate either as Counsel or prosecutor and never sat as a judge. He has been an academic throughout his legal career and was involved in preparatory work for the establishment of the CCJ.

The tenure of CCJ judges is 72 years, but Pollard was given a three-year extension two and a half years ago.

Since Justice Anderson’s appointment was criticised, legal practitioners want to know why the RJLSC chose a law professor rather than an experienced judge.

Justice Anderson holds a law degree from the University of the West Indies and a Doctorate in Philosophy (Phd) in international law from the University of Cambridge. For most of his career, he has been a member of the Law Faculty of UWI.

He was appointed lecturer in 1994, senior lecturer in 1999 and was made professor in 2006. He spent a year as a Research Fellow at the University of Sheffield between ‘1994 and 1995, and a year as senior lecturer on fellowship at the University of Western Australia in 1996. He is currently the executive director of the Caribbean Law Institute Centre (CLIC).

Professor Anderson and Professor Simeon Mc Intosh were involved during the past two years travelling around the Caribbean participating in seminars promoting the CCJ, and urging governments to join the Appellate Division of the Regional Court.

The lone female judge in the Court, Desiree Bernard, who was Chief Justice and former Chancellor of Guyana will reach the age of retirement in March next year, and already there are discussions in the legal circle whether she will be given an extension, and if not, whether another female will be appointed to replace the distinguished Guyanese.

Justice Bernard had many firsts in her homeland - the first female judge, first female Court of Appeal Judge, first female Chief Justice, first female Chancellor of Guyana and first female Head of the Judiciary in the Caribbean.

She is also the first Solicitor to be appointed a Judge, the reason being that the legal profession in Guyana was fused in 1979 and Justice Bernard, a practising Solicitor, automatically became an Attorney at Law since both Solicitors and Barristers were known as Attorneys as of November 1979.

Justice Bernard was appointed a High Court Judge in 1980. I recall writing a piece in the local newspapers under the headline “High time for a female Judge in Guyana” and I suggested her appointment although she was from the practising Bar, and the following week she was named.

Belize will soon be on board as the third jurisdiction to join, and I look forward for Dominica, and Jamaica to do so soon rather than later. I am also hopeful that Trinidad and Tobago will consider joining now that there is a new opposition leader, Kamla Persad Bissessar, a West Indian trained attorney who served as Attorney General under the Basdeo Panday administration.

2010-03-22T12:00:00.001-05:00

Commentary: Delay in joining CCJ is amazing
Published on Monday, March 22, 2010 By Oscar Ramjeet
Source: Caribbean Net News

As Belize is about to join the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final court, one of the seven judges and the Court Registrar visited the country and held discussions with local judges and explained the Rules and Procedure of the regional court with practising lawyers.

Their visit coincided with a farewell sitting for Appellate Court Judge, Jamaican-born Boyd Carey.

Justice Adrian Saunders, who was involved in drafting the Rules of the CCJ and Registrar, Dawn Pierre, explained to more than three dozen lawyers at a workshop on Saturday, the rules and procedures to be followed in filing appeals to the regional court.

Belize is the third CARICOM country to get rid of the Privy Council as the final Court, and the first to do so since its establishment, when only two countries, Guyana and Barbados, went on board. It baffles me why the other member states are hesitant and/or reluctant to do so, especially countries like Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, which were in the forefront in the setting up of the Court. However, I have been reliably informed that Dominica is in the process of making preparations to join, but that country is now experiencing parliamentary setback since the opposition party is boycotting parliament, claiming irregularities at the last general elections.

Jamaica as well as St Lucia are also considering joining in the near future. The Patrick Manning administration in Trinidad and Tobago is all in favour of the regional court, but in order for that country to join it must get the support of the Opposition, since it requires two thirds of the vote, and the then opposition leader, Basdeo Panday, was not in favour of the move. However, now that there is a new leader of the opposition UNC, in Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who is a West Indian- trained attorney, it is likely there will be a change in that regard.

The CCJ has been established since February 14, 2001, by an agreement signed by a dozen regional governments on February 15, 2003, but the inauguration took place nearly five years ago on April 15, 2005.

The Court has not heard many cases in its Appellate jurisdiction since only two of the 12 countries have accepted the CCJ as the final appellate court, and this is very unfortunate since the Port of Spain based Court has the best court facilities on the planet. I was privileged to visiting the Court and was impressed with what I have seen - besides the well equipped libraries, spacious conference room, robing room etc. I was elated with the court room appearance, with the most modern telephonic and fascinating equipment. The facilities include: A document Reader/Visual Presenter: Ability to use laptop computers, DVF/VCR: Audio/Video Digital Recording (microphones situated throughout the courtroom) ; wireless internet access, and audio/video transcripts.

International jurists who have visited the CCJ and read its judgments generally have a high opinion of the court. One of them, Francis Jacobs, a Privy Councillor and former Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, said that the CCJ is of a high calibre and would be able to take account of local values and develop a modern Caribbean jurisprudence in an international context. He also took a swipe at some Caribbean leaders when he said, "It is regrettable that political difficulties have obstructed acceptance of its Appellate jurisdiction and that the outdated jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council survives for many of those states.

One of the most respected Caribbean jurists, Dominican born Telford Georges, said before his death that he regarded it as a "compromise of sovereignty" for us to remain wedded "to a court which is part of the former colonial hierarchy, a court in the appointment of whose members we have absolutely no say."

I sincerely hope that steps will soon be taken by those countries that have not yet joined will do so as soon as possible.

2010-03-21T21:04:00.004-05:00

The Caribbean Court of Justice and the Legal Profession:

Promoting a Caribbean Jurisprudence

Author: Justice Adrian Saunders

Published in: Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 33 Is. 4 December 2007

Abstract

The author submits that the main purpose in the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is to promote the development of a Caribbean jurisprudence, based on the Commonwealth Caribbean's common historic, political, economic and cultural experiences and mutual history.

The article examines the role of final appellate courts, noting that judges of such courts must often choose between alternatives which are perfectly capable of being defended as rational, reasonable and consistent with 'the law'. Factors such as life experiences, socialisation, and backgrounds all play a role in determining the choices that are ultimately made. This is why, the author underscores that 'it is so important to have a diverse Bench, to have Judges from different backgrounds'.

For judges to come close to steering the right course they must have an understanding of the society that gives rise to the legal disputes. They must be grounded in that society. In this respect, the author argues, it is remarkable that the evolution of certain landmark judgments relating to human rights, particularly capital punishment, have been rendered by British judges, sitting and residing in England.

The article, which draws on a wealth of jurisprudence, proceeds to examine the original jurisdiction of the CCJ and the role of the Bar in defending the integrity of the Court and the justice system as well as in enhancing the quality of judgments.

Finally, it emphasises the need to promote Caribbean jurisprudence and access to local judgments. In this regard, it is lamented that many truly outstanding judgments of Caribbean judges do not receive the recognition they should because, if there is an appeal, they become almost automatically buried beneath the judgments of the higher court.

* This is an adaptation of an address given to the Eastern Caribbean Bar Association on 21 September 2007, in Grenada

2010-03-20T13:27:00.000-05:00

Guyana prosecutors now allowed to appeal verdicts

Source: Associated Press
Published : 2010-03-20

Legislators have approved a bill that will for the first time let prosecutors appeal verdicts and allow police to immediately re-arrest suspects in this South American country.

Prosecutors can appeal all the way to the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice _ the highest judicial body for much of the region _ but opposition leaders and attorneys said they will challenge the bill.

"Given the pace at which our courts work, this could mean a virtual lifetime in prison for some offenders who win their cases," opposition lawmakers Khemraj Ramjattan said Friday.

The state can now appeal jury acquittals for murder, treason, sexual offenses, piracy, carjacking and drug trafficking cases, among others. Ramjattan said attorneys are researching whether such actions are allowed in other former British colonies.

Legislators who approved the bill late Thursday said the state wants the right to appeal decisions in cases where there might have been trial irregularities, misdirection from a judge or suppression of evidence.

2010-03-02T07:50:00.002-05:00

Belize Senate approves Caribbean Court of Justice

Source: Belize News

Published : 26/02/2010

The Senate on Tuesday passed the Belize Constitution 7th Amendment Bill in order to abolish the Privy Council as Belize’s final court of appeal.

The constitutional amendment would also enable Prime Minister Dean Barrow, the head of Cabinet, to appoint an Attorney General from outside both houses of Parliament – the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The Opposition People’s United Party did not support the amendment; however, the vote was carried by the senators for the ruling United Democratic Party, the churches and the business community.

During the voting one of the ruling party’s senators Eddie Webster called for a division, so that individual votes could be recorded. It was revealed that 8 out of 12 senators had voted ‘yes,’ while 2 voted ‘no’ (PUP Senators Carolyn Trench-Sandiford and Corona Villafranco), and 2 abstained (Paul Perriott for the trade unions and the PUP’s Lisa Shoman, SC). The Belize Constitution 7th Amendment Bill is now ready to be signed into law by the Governor-General.

However, the Senate decided to hold the accompanying amendments to the CCJ Bill, which will remain in committee for further clarifications, according to the Leader of Government Business Douglas Singh. The Privy Council Appeals Act is also being repealed.

PUP Senator Lisa Shoman said that the removal of Section 4 of the 7th Amendment Bill, which would have enabled persons with dual nationality to join Parliament, was “a triumph of people power.”

“It means that people power is alive, is well and is effective,” she commented.

The more welcomed aspect of the bill is the removal of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom as Belize’s final appellate court. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will assume that jurisdiction.

The CCJ, a judicial tribunal for the Caribbean, was established on February 14, 2001, under the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice, which was appended to today’s amendments.

Of note is that Belize was among the original signatories to that agreement to establish the court, which was inaugurated in April 2005 in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago.

Senator Godwin Hulse, representing the business community, commented that the normal practice in other jurisdictions when governments make such changes to the Constitution is for a white paper to be circulated.

Shoman concurred that “...having a white paper and allowing wide debate, while things can still be changed, is important.” She noted that Belize had previously had only 5 amendments to the Constitution in the 27 years after the Law came into being, in the year of Independence.

Hulse noted that, as things now stand, the Prime Minister can draw up to four ministers from the Senate.

We note that the former administration of Said Musa had availed itself of that option, appointing, for example, Foreign Affairs ministers from the pool of their Senate appointees.

The Barrow administration has given ministerial posts to only elected politicians of the House of Representatives, and no Senators have, over the first two years of the administration, been endowed with ministerial posts.

The more contentious part of the Belize Constitution 7th Amendment Bill is the Attorney General appointment.

Senator Hulse raised the key issue of accountability: The changes in the Attorney General appointment, noted Hulse, would mean that he or she would fall outside the requirement for filings of assets and holdings under the Prevention of Corruption in Public Life Act.

Hulse noted that the Government doesn’t yet have a structure in place for members of Cabinet who are not members of either house of Parliament to be put on the spot by colleagues in “questions to ministers,” a routine segment of House meetings. The 6th amendment to the Belize Constitution, now on hold, should have come before, because it would enable the Senate to summon the Attorney General to answer questions of concern, he explained.

“It is clear that accountability and answerability of any member of Cabinet is something that is not only to be desired, but to be demanded and expected by the people of Belize,” added Senator Shoman.

“While it is in the vein of beginning to select ministers from outside [Parliament], it should have been part of a comprehensive package,” commented Senator Hulse.

Hulse also pointed to statements made at Friday’s House Meeting by the present Attorney General Wilfred Elrington, indicating that he welcomes being relieved of that part of his portfolio, which also includes foreign affairs and foreign trade.

The Senator noted that “...if he didn’t have experience in foreign affairs or foreign trade, the one place he has experience in is the legal profession which is what the Attorney General is, because he is a former judge of the Supreme Court, former Magistrate, Crown Counsel, Senior Counsel, and Senior Attorney. That would be the one job that he would want to retain or, for that matter, that the government would seek for him to retain which would be the Attorney General.”

Hulse asserted: “I still think that the amendment is devoid of an explanation from government as to why it is so important and urgent.”

According to Senator Singh, the Prime Minister has committed that he won’t have the 6th Amendment Bill to the Belize Constitution signed into law until all legal issues are addressed.

Apart from approving the amendments to the Belize Constitution, the Senate also approved a loan motion for $3.48 million from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) for a Rural Belize River Valley water project. The loan, said Singh, is to be repaid in 18 equal quarterly payments starting 10 years after date of signing, and it accrues 2.5% interest per annum, to be paid quarterly on outstanding balance. There is no commitment fee, and the loan is to be fully disbursed by 2011, added Singh.

Senator Godwin Hulse, representing the private sector, said that the program had been budgeted by the government for 10 consecutive years, and it is gratifying to see that it will finally happen.

“This is the kind of loan we should have for development projects,” expressed Senator Hulse.

The Leader of Government Business laid on the table a paper on the Village Council Election Regulations 2009, regulations that would remove the administration of the village council elections from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Local Government and give it to the Elections and Boundaries Commission, as well as to make provisions for the administration of these upcoming elections.

Singh said that the regulations had already been published in the Government’s Gazette by the Ministry and was only being laid before the Senate for their information. Therefore, no amendments could be made at that point, said Singh.

At Tuesday’s Senate meeting, the senators also approved the re-appointment of two Supreme Court justices past the retirement age of 65. Oswell Legall’s re-appointment has been approved for three years, beginning June 7, 2010. (Legall, a native of Guyana, joined the Belize judiciary in January, 2009.)

The Senate also approved another short appointment for Supreme Court Justice Troadio Gonzalez, from March 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010. (Gonzalez’s term ends this month.)

Also approved were the Refrigeration and Technician Licensing Bill, for the licensing of refrigeration and air-conditioning technicians; and the International Foundation Bill, for the establishment, operation and regulation of international foundations.

House vets replacement of Privy Council with CCJ

2010-02-25T14:39:00.001-05:00

Source: Belize News

Published: February 23, 2010

The House of Representatives on Friday approved the replacement of the Privy Council, the final appellate court in Belize, with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

The legislative backing for the change comes from amendments to the Belize Constitution (in the 7th Amendment Bill), as well as the revocation of the Privy Council Act.

Even though Prime Minister Dean Barrow had signaled the removal of the dual citizenship portion of the constitutional amendment, in response to fierce and vocal opposition to it on the home front, the proposal, nonetheless, consumed a large part of the debate.

The Opposition People’s United Party was castigated from across the floor for its position to not support the dual citizenship amendment, and was told that they have no regard for Belizeans in the “diaspora.”

Prime Minister Barrow commented that the dual citizenship feature has already been introduced into the OECS’ (Organization of Eastern Caribbean States) constitution, and was there in Belize’s pre-independence constitution.

As the law now stands, a person born in Belize who acquires citizenship in another country cannot run for office. The ruling party claimed that the amendment was crafted to give these Belizeans an opportunity to actively engage in governance, to become representatives in the House, or to be appointed to the Senate. However, there were many Belizeans who had questions over where the allegiance of a person with dual nationality would lie.

Regarding the replacement of the Privy Council as Belize’s final appellate court, the amendment to the constitution and the repealing of the Privy Council Act was done, said Barrow, to implement the CARICOM agreement establishing the CCJ.

The other aspect of the constitutional amendment had to do with the appointment of an Attorney General for Belize.

Under existing laws, the Attorney General must come from either the Senate or the House; however, the amendment would enable the Prime Minister to choose a private practitioner to fill the post, without requiring that person to be a member of either houses of Parliament.

The Attorney General, a trained lawyer, himself weighed in and supported the amendment. Wilfred “Sedi” Elrington, who also serves as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, said “…if the Prime Minister [is able] to bring in independent people, people who had already done well, who are competent, who are capable, experienced as Ministers, then we wouldn’t have a problem with corruption.”

Elrington also claimed that only about 2% of all attorneys are “really good” and “really capable of, in fact, doing a good job [for] their clients.”

Despite current speculation that the post would be given to Lois Young, whose firm Prime Minister Barrow said Friday is the government’s top choice, giving value for money, Barrow had told us in a prior interview, when the amendment was first publicized, that he was not carving out the provision for Ms. Young.

In June 2009, he said thathe has no intention of changing the current AG, Wilfred Elrington, but he is making the legislative changes to allow the Government to select from the ranks of the practitioners a top professional who doesn’t want to be caught up in the “hurly burly” of the business of the House and Senate.

Said Musa, former Prime Minister and member for Fort George, questioned Barrow on whether he was moving the system from a parliamentary to a republican system:

“The Attorney General, in the final analysis, like any other Minister, must be answerable to Parliament if it is to be a parliamentary democracy. ...So where is the representative democracy? Where is the parliamentary democracy once you appoint an AG from outside?”

The constitutional amendment, which covers the provisions for the CCJ and the appointment of the Attorney General, went through its third reading with approval, but has yet to be passed by the Senate.

2010-02-24T11:18:00.001-05:00

Belize clears way for CCJ
BBC Caribbean News in Brief

Source: Stabroek
Published :February 24, 2010 - In Regional News

The Belize senate was expected to approve legislation allowing the country to adopt the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final appellate body, when it met yesterday.

Lawmakers approved the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution last Friday, allowing the country to replace the London-based Privy Council with the CCJ.

If approved, Belize will become the third Caricom member state to adopt the CCJ both in its original jurisdiction and a final court of appeal.

Barbados and Guyana are the only other Caricom states to recognise the court in its criminal appellate jurisdiction, since its launch in 2005.
Grenada clears the air on Mr Vegas

The Grenada government has been explaining the government’s reasons for denying a work permit to Jamaican dancehall artiste, Mr Vegas.

Mr Vegas, whose real name is Clifford Smith, was scheduled to perform in St George’s on Saturday, but did not receive permission from the government.

Labour Minister Karl Hood says while the ministry has no difficulty with regional performers coming to the island, they need to follow proper procedures.

Mr Hood said that some promoters have continued with last minute requests for work permits, even though they have been advertising their events for months.

“We will not therefore be responsible for promoters who are denied permits based on their compliance with our procedures,” Mr Hood said.

2010-02-22T10:58:00.001-05:00

Local official believes CCJ affected by political interference
Source:Dominica News Online Published: 2/22/10

Dominican Justice Irving Andre says the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has been affected by political interference, opposing the view of an official of the Caribbean law institute.

Executive Director of the Caribbean Law Institute Professor Winston Anderson last week dismissed suggestions that political interference may affect the CCJ, but Justice Irving Andre now contends there’s evidence of political interference in the court of appeal.

“There were suggestions that our own Sir Brian Alleyne did not receive the position of the chief justice on account of political observation from one of the regional leaders, and there has been for a number of years suggestions that the judicial system is not entirely impervious from influences from the political sphere,” he said.

“At this point, there is a strong narrative, suggesting based on historical evidence, that the court has not been entirely immune to that type of influence in the past,” Justice Andre underscored.

Justice Andre believes the onus is on the “powers that be” to ensure the final appeals court chosen for the region is free of political interferences.

“I think those who are making a significant contribution towards ensuring that we have a judicial system…which is second to none … and they have taken steps to try to ensure that when this thing becomes a reality that the question of political interference does not become an impediment towards the realization of justice in the Caribbean.”

Lecture - The Role of the CCJ

2010-02-18T11:45:00.002-05:00

Source: Dominica News Online

Published 17.2.10

The University of the West Indies Open Campus Dominica, in collaboration with the Dominica Bar Association, is pleased to announce another public lecture on a topical matter in the lives of the people of the region and Dominica.

The Lecture will take place on Thursday, February 18, 2010 commencing at 6:00 pm at the Conference Room of the Garraway Hotel in Roseau, Dominica. Two distinguished academics from the Law Faculty of The University of the West Indies will make presentations on the acceptance of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in its appellate jurisdiction. The presentations are part of a regional information effort regarding acceptance of the CCJ throughout the region.

Professor Winston Anderson will present on Dominica’s delinking from the Privy Council and accepting the CCJ in its appellate jurisdiction and Professor Simeon C R McIntosh’s presentation will be on the philosophical justification for the court. Jointly, the paper is titled, “Constitutional Authorship and the Inscription of Caribbean Nationhood: The Role of the CCJ”.

A former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the UWI Cave Hill Campus in Barbados, Professor McIntosh has taught courses in Conflict of Laws, Federal Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Remedies, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory and Civil Procedure. He holds the Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree from the Columbia University School of Law, New York N.Y.; the Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Howard University School of Law, Washington D.C.; and the B.A. in English from York University, Toronto, Canada.

Professor Anderson in 1999 became Senior Lecturer at the University of the West Indies on indefinite tenure. He was appointed Executive Director (Ag) of the Caribbean Law Institute Centre for the academic year 2000-2001.

He was appointed to the position of the General Counsel of the Caribbean Community Secretariat on secondment from the University of the West Indies, 2003-2006. In 2006 he was appointed Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies. Professor Anderson’s major publications include, The Law of Caribbean Marine Pollution, published by Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, 1997; Elements of Private International Law (2003, Caribbean Law Publishers); and Private International Family Law (2005, Caribbean Law Publishers).

Following his return to the Faculty of Law in 2006, Professor Anderson was appointed Executive Director of the Caribbean Law Institute Centre, a position he holds at present.

2010-02-05T14:37:00.001-05:00

Jamaican professor newest CCJ judge

Friday, February 5th 2010

Source: http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161591593

JAMAICAN Prof Charles Anderson is the newest judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), a release from the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission stated yesterday.

Anderson is scheduled to replace current CCJ Judge Duke Pollard, who is due to retire on June 10.

He is expected to assume duties on the day of Pollard’s departure from office.

Anderson lives in Barbados and holds a law degree from the University of the West Indies (UWI) and a Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD) in international and environmental law from the University of Cambridge.

He has been called to the Bar successively in England, Barbados and Jamaica.

For most of his career, Anderson has been a member of the Law Faculty of the University of the West Indies (UWI).

He was appointed lecturer in 1994, senior lecturer in 1999 and was made professor in 2006.

Anderson spent a year as a research fellow at the University of Sheffield, between 1994 and 1995, and a year as a senior lecturer on fellowship at the University of Western Australia in 1996.

Anderson is currently the executive director of the Caribbean Law Institute Centre (CLIC).

Belize to abolish appeals to the Privy Council

2010-01-19T10:50:00.003-05:00

Hon. Wilfred Sedi Elrington,

“By the time we have reassembled here next year for the opening of the law year for the year 2011, Belize should have abolished appeals to the Privy Council and accepted the Port of Spain based Caribbean Court of Justice as its final court of appeal.”

Source: http://7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=15999

Published: posted (January 18, 2010)

2010-01-17T22:21:00.002-05:00

CARICOM IN 'COMA'

by RICKEY SINGH

Source: Jamaica Observer

Published Sunday, January 17, 2010

EVEN as the Caribbean Community Secretariat remains intensely engaged in commendable regional humanitarian aid efforts for earthquake-devastated Haiti, the prognosis for any significant advancement in Caricom's major programmes during the first half of this second decade of the 21st century does not appear encouraging.

Indeed, with a perceived trend towards a narrow nationalism, masked in a few cases as new approaches in trade, immigration and economic policies, there lurks the danger of an undermining of the growth of a once robust regional spirit to make the Single Market and Economy (CSME) a reality.

At present, while the Caricom Secretariat is preparing for the first Inter-Sessional Meeting of Heads of Government for this year, scheduled for Dominica next month, or early March, there are serious misgivings about the way forward for the CSME -- the Community's flagship project originally targeted for inauguration in 2015.

In November 2009, one of the foremost collaborators in the regional enterprise that is Caricom, Sir Shridath Ramphal, had painfully noted in an address to a forum of distinguished West Indians in Port of Spain on "Regional Progress and Challenges" that "As with West Indies cricket, regionalism can be damaged if we forget our trust and are ruled by short-term fixes. We did not become independent of Britain to scatter our regional heritage to the winds of passing fortune. But we are being tempted to do just that, and Caricom is blowing in the wind..."

A former long-serving Commonwealth secretary general and chancellor of the University of the West Indies warned:

"The CSME has lost credibility. Shame overwhelms us as we create the Caribbean Court of Justice and cling, unwanted, to the Privy Council. If things continue to fall apart like this, the centre will not hold. Caricom is comatose; and without intensive care a coma can precede death."

Ramphal's "straws"

Asked last Wednesday (before the announcement of Haiti's earthquake disaster) whether he still felt the same way about Caricom as he did at last November's symposium in Port of Spain, Ramphal told this columnist, "Unfortunately I still do", then quickly added:

"If I am to clutch at straws I would derive hope from the recent initialling of the treaty to establish an OECS Economic Union; and the potential for deeper cooperation between Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, as exemplified in current negotiations involving the operations of Air Jamaica..."

At Caricom's upcoming inter-sessional in Roseau, Barbados Prime Minister David Thompson is expected to give a report on the CSME Convocation he had hosted last October.

It was an occasion when representatives of both the region's private sector and labour movement did not spare criticisms of what they continue to view as yawning gaps between official rhetoric and actions to generate public confidence that arrangements for advancing the CSME are indeed being seriously pursued.

A notable absentee from the CSME Convocation was the regional economist, Professor Norman Girvan, author of the seminal report on "Towards a Single Economy and a Single Development Vision" that outlined a "road map" for strategising and methodical implementation.

To say that Girvan has himself become disillusioned over the lack of necessary collective approaches to implement the CSME project -- unanimously endorsed by the Community Heads of Government -- would be to recall a similar discouraging example as it relates to Professor Vaughn Lewis's report on the need for a new and more effective form of governance of Caricom affairs.

Now heading towards its 37th year of existence on July 4, 2010, Caricom remains divided on how and when to introduce what leading political and economic scholars, eminent private sector executives and others regard as a necessary new administrative architecture.

At its core -- as long recommended in the 1992 report of The West Indian Commission that was headed by Sir Shridath -- could be a team of eminent Caricom nationals (either three or five) armed with executive authority and focused on systematic implementation of unanimously adopted decisions by the Heads of Government.

If it's not a case of a seeming reluctance by the Community's political directorate against sharing power with leading regional technocrats, or a preference to hide behind expedient interpretations of "national sovereignty", then the Community's leaders should come clean in 2010 on what are the main barriers to the introduction of a more relevant system of governance of Caricom.

Disappointments

Last year, when there were a lot of "special meetings" of Caricom ministers and leaders, as well as task forces with overlapping mandates, to find practical responses to the negative impact on regional economies of the global financial and economic crisis, we were told of plans for a special delegation of Heads of Government and top fiscal and economic experts to engage the international financial institutions in Washington.

Well, the year ended and no such engagement is known to have occurred.

We were also informed of an expected summit of Caricom leaders with President Barack Obama before year-end. No such meeting took place and none is yet carded for any time in 2010.

The region's people are aware of developments that resulted in the miniaturising of the once high-profile Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM).

Less awareness prevails about the status quo of either CSME-readiness arrangements or the extent of progress by the special unit in the Community Secretariat responsible for implementation arrangements for the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) entered into with the European Union in 2008.

The first decade of the 21st century ended last year with ongoing disappointments that no progress of significance was made on the much-publicised people-focused project of intra-regional free movement, particularly as it relates to skilled Community nationals. The issue remains enmeshed in immigration controversies.

The current immigration situation in Antigua and Barbuda, for example, appears serious enough to warrant some direct action by the governments of Jamaica and Guyana with that of the Baldwin Spencer administration in St John's, as there have been repeated reports of unfair and inhumane treatment of their nationals.

At the symposium in Port of Spain on "Regional Progress and Challenges" referred to earlier, Sir Shridath Ramphal had expressed the hope that the results of that event could "help bring us (the region) to our senses...".

Alas, that hope has often been variously expressed at successive Caricom Heads of Government.

It would, therefore, be quite refreshing to see Caricom leaders demonstrate a new readiness to advance the goals of our economic integration movement at their coming 31st annual summit in July - venue is still undecided.

Hopefully this will bring closure to the multiplicity of negative features and occurrences during the second half of the first decade of this 21st century to inspire hope for a significant change, at least during the first half of this second decade when the CSME is scheduled to be operationalised.

2010-01-08T11:32:00.002-05:00

CURIOUS JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS

BY RICKEY SINGH Observer Caribbean correspondent

Source: Jamaica Observer

Friday, January 08, 2010

There is a growing public concern in Barbados over the surprising disclosure last weekend of Chief Justice Sir David Simmons' decision to retire on his 70th birthday, this coming April 28.

There has been no official response as yet why Sir David, who became Barbados' 12th Chief Justice on January 1, 2002, was not given the 'conventional nod', accorded his immediate post-independence predecessors, to remain in office for an additional two years -- until age 72.

Sir David himself has declined to confirm or deny that he tendered his retirement letter last week to Governor General Sir Clifford Husbands, after failing to receive an official communication for a constitutionally permissible two-year extension he was encouraged to seek.

A former attorney general and minister of home affairs of the previous Barbados Labour Party administration of then Prime Minister Owen Arthur, Sir David told this writer: "My retirement is irrevocable; and I do not wish to bring the judiciary of Barbados into any controversy... I have noted, as an independent observer, the controversies that have involved the judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago and I certainly do not wish that to happen here."

Nevertheless, Sir David's impending retirement as a consequence of the departure from the convention of extending the tenure of a chief justice on reaching the retirement age of 70, is likely to have more than ripple effects in local and regional judicial circles familiar with his varied performances over some 32 years in the legal profession and public life.

Moreso, perhaps, in Trinidad and Tobago where the distinguished Barbadian jurist has long been expected to be a likely candidate to succeed the distinguished Trinidadian, Michael de la Bastide, as president of the Port-of-Spain-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Sir David had played significant roles in the establishment and inauguration of the CCJ.

The president of the Barbados Bar Association, Queen's Counsel Leslie Haynes, has told this correspondent that while the media report on Sir David's retirement came as quite a surprise, he and his colleagues would first have to acquaint themselves with the circumstances before offering a public comment.

But two lawyers often in the news, Andrew Pilgrim and Robert 'Bobby' Clarke, had no reservations in separately questioning the failure to extend Sir David's tenure and in declaring why he deserves to remain as chief justice for another two years.

Of more relevance and significance, however, was the editorial in Tuesday's Daily Nation titled 'Saluting Sir David's Services'.

Accompanied by a cartoon caricaturing the chief justice toasting "here's to my retirement", the editorial noted that his retirement announcement would have come as a suprise for those who have been expecting him to remain for an extended two years.

The editorial went on to observe that whatever may be the factor, or factors that contributed to Sir David's decision to retire, his stepping down "after a most illustrious career in the legal profession, certainly opens an opportunity for his valuable experience to be available to the Caribbean Court of Justice..."

And there, perhaps, lies the rub. Certainly for Caricom's political directorate involved in the decision-making process of approving who gets the nod as CCJ president, based on recommendations from the Regional Judiciary and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC).

The presidency is the sole CCJ appointment in which Caricom leaders are involved. When the CCJ was inaugurated in April 2005 in Port-of-Spain, de la Bastide became its first president under employment provisions that point to a retirement age at 72.

However, by 2007, according to Tuesday's Nation editorial, the provisions were amended to increase the retirement age to 75. The terms of employment of president de la Bastide were also varied "to permit him to remain in office until the age of 75.

"But", added the editorial, "this decision by the RJLSC was done WITHOUT (my emphasis) involvement of the Heads of Government."

I have been reliably informed that, without prejudice, and cognisant of the competence and integrity of President de la Bastide, inquiries are now to be made, at Heads of Government level, about the processes that resulted in the extension of the incumbent president's tenure for retirement at age 75.

It would be interesting to learn which, if any, comes first -- an official explanation on the non-extension of Sir David's tenure as chief justice of Barbados; or, the change in the age of retirement of president of the CCJ from 72 to 75 that facilitated the distinguished de la Bastide.

2010-01-07T14:37:00.001-05:00

Guyana seeking regional support to settle cement impasse
Published - Thursday, January 7, 2010
Source: Caribbean Net News

GEORGETOWN, Guyana -- Guyana is seeking to urgently resolve the impasse with the Trinidad Cement Limited on the removal of the common external tariff on cement imported from extra regional sources say foreign affairs minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett.

The Foreign Minister said Monday that the matter, which is of importance to the entire Caribbean, would be raised at the next Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) meeting to be held here from February 4 to 9.

The matter is high on the agenda as it can have significant negative impacts on the local construction sector if not resolved urgently.

She has raised the matter with officials from other CARICOM states who are facing similar problems with the Trinidad-based cement company.

“I have been in discussion with several of my colleagues (Caribbean Foreign Ministers) and this hopefully, will be one of the first issues to be discussed at our next COTED and Guyana is looking to have this issue resolved in such away, that our business can continue, and our construction workers would not be hindered,” Rodrigues Birkett said.

Guyanese authorities had indicated that the removal of the CET from the commodity was based on national interest since the Trinidad-based company was unable to meet the demand from Guyana and the rest of the Caribbean.

“The issue of the CET on cement found itself on many occasions in the media and is something that is very very important to us to be sorted out… it would call for cooperation and collaboration with other member states as well and we are hoping we would be able to have a reasonable agreement in this regard,” Rodrigues explained.

TCL had moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) against Guyana and the CARICOM secretariat claiming that the removal of CET on cement from outside the region was illegal.

The Court ruled in favour of the company last year and instructed Guyana to reinstate the tariff. Guyana has abided by the ruling but will contest the decision.

2009-12-16T11:22:00.001-05:00

Commonwealth lawyers must ‘build on grand achievements of the past’ – Ramphal

Source: The Commonwealth.org

15 December 2009

Former Secretary-General calls for reform of Caribbean legal system during anniversary law lecture

Shridath ‘Sonny’ Ramphal, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, used a lecture hosted by the Commonwealth Legal Forum last week to urge reform of Caribbean judicial structures.

Sir Shridath, offering his support to the newly-established Caribbean Court of Justice, called on Commonwealth countries with links to the British Empire to drop their right of appeal to the UK’s Privy Council, a centuries-old judicial and political body, warning that failure to do so would leave them “loitering on the doorstep of colonialism”.

He said: “Now that we have created our own Caribbean Court of Justice and done so in a manner that has won the respect and admiration of the common law world, it is an act of abysmal contrariety that we have withheld so substantially its appellate jurisdiction in favour of that of the Privy Council.”

‘Language, learning and law’

During the hour-long lecture to mark the 60th anniversary of the 54-member association, on 7 December 2009 at Marlborough House, London, UK, the Guyanese former Secretary-General touched on the abolition of slavery and the founding of the modern Commonwealth.

Sir Shridath, who served as Secretary-General between 1975 and 1990, said that “language, learning and law” were the three “most precious” elements of the association’s heritage.

But, calling on Commonwealth lawyers to “build upon the grand achievements of the past”, Sir Shridath hit out at the apparent “hesitancy” of Caribbean judges, lawyers and governments to support the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Just two Caribbean countries among 12 – Guyana and Barbados – have conferred the power of appeal to the CCJ, despite all signing a 2001 treaty establishing the court, he noted.

Sir Shridath, a former Attorney General of Guyana, meanwhile called on Caribbean governments to be “assiduous in demonstrating respect for all independent constitutional bodies”.

Death penalty issue

He added that the appeal court issue was further “complicated” by the issue of the death penalty, which is maintained by a number of countries in the region. Mr Ramphal said that the Privy Council had been “rigorous in upholding Caribbean appeals in death sentence cases”.

The Privy Council

Sixteen Commonwealth member states retain the UK’s Privy Council, a British body of political and judicial advisers to the UK head of state, as their final court of appeal. Appeal cases are heard by the council’s Judicial Committee, composed of senior British judges who also sit in the UK’s Supreme Court.

He continued: “Someday the Caribbean as a whole must accept abolition of the death penalty. I believe they should have done so already, but in a situation of heightened crime in the region popular sentiment has been reflected in political reticence.”

Sir Shridath’s comments follow those of Lord Phillips, Chairman of the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee and President of the UK’s Supreme Court, who in September attacked the “disproportionate time” he and fellow judges spend on Privy Council cases derived from Commonwealth countries.

‘An ideal world’

Lord Phillips, claiming that up to 40 per cent of the judges’ time was spent on Privy Council cases, said that “in an ideal world” such countries would instead establish their own courts of appeal.

Sir Shridath said that he backed Lord Phillips’ remarks, adding: “Many a Caribbean lawyer, many Caribbean persons, and at least some Caribbean government’s welcomed [Lord Phillip’s] urging.”

2009-12-15T12:08:00.003-05:00

CARICOM: THE IDEAL OF GOOD GOVERNANCE - THREE PILLARS OF REFORM

SPEECH
Of
December 4, 2009
at

THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS

By
Dr. Caleb M. Pilgrim

Last time I was here was on Friday 13^th. I thank Comrade Astor Watts for choosing a more auspicious date at the beginning of the holiday season, and Comrades Maycock and Hunte and you especially for inviting me and coming out to this lecture.

It is fitting that we should discuss today’s topic here at the DLP’s Headquarters insofar as the late Errol Barrow was a committed regionalist, the co-founder of CARIFTA and a co-founder of CARICOM. My arguments today centre on three (3) specific proposals:

A CARICOM Administrative Tribunal
A CARICOM Human Rights Commission
A CARICOM Ombudsman

PILLAR NO. 1

I have previously spoken of the need for a CARICOM Admin. Tribunal. Such a Tribunal would hear disputes between employees and the respective CARICOM Institutions, Associate Institutions, Organs or Bodies.

We first canvassed this idea of a CARICOM Administrative Tribunal around September 2007 before litigating the matter of Johnson v CARICOM, CCJ AR2 of 2008 (OJ), the second case filed under the Original Jurisdiction of the CCJ. As you know, the C.C.J subsequently ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that matter, a case in which the Plaintiff, a Barbadian woman, alleged that her employer, a regional institution, had discriminated against her based on her Barbadian nationality in violation of Article 7 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing CARICOM and the CSME. Article 7 of the Revised Treaty expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality.

That ruling has serious implications for certain Barbadian employees. For, it is today the case that a fair number of Barbadians are employed in CARICOM, its Institutions and Associate Institutions in Barbados, e.g. CDB, CARDI, CARICAD, CMO, CMI, CTO, CDEMA. The need for a CARICOM Administrative Tribunal is evident in the fact that any CARCOM employee, like any other employee, could be faced at any time by an “adverse employment action”. By an “adverse employment action” I mean an action such an oral warning, a written warning, a suspension, and the ultimate – termination of one’s employment. Faced with an adverse employment action, the employee of a CARICOM Institution or Associate Institution may well today have no legal remedy, based on the Court’s dismissal of that matter, and absent amendment and radical revision of Chapter 9 (Disputes Settlement Provisions) of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. I suggested such revision in an Open Letter to the Secretary-General, the Honorable Dr. Edwin Carrington, 2009 (Seabrook News July 7, 2009). At the regional and international level, an Administrative Tribunal would protect the rights of all Caribbean workers employed by CARICOM and its various entities.

Some of you will recall that the Hon. Arni Walters, Minister of Labour, in his talk “The Modernization of our Employment Relations – The Uses of Legislation and Social Dialogue” here at the Institute on October 16, 2009 spoke of the new Employment Rights Bill. Any such Bill, and eventually any such legislation, must include protections for the rights of ALL Barbadian employees. It must therefore include legal protections for all those who work for international institutions headquartered in Barbados, whether that be CXC, CEDA, CTO, EU, CMO, CARDI, IICA, even various diplomatic missions. My argument is that at the level of domestic law, the Barbadian employee, professional and non-professional, established and non-established, requires protection with respect to their employment rights, as a matter of domestic, internal law, when confronted by an adverse employment action.

At another level, the Barbados Government is party to a number of international treaties and conventions. At the level of public international law, Article 41 (1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 provides:

“without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state”.[1]

It is therefore undisputable that Regional and International Organizations and even Diplomatic Missions have a duty to conform their behaviour to local law and regulations, to wit, Barbados’ Laws and Regulations.

Correspondingly,

“It is an elementary principle of international law that a State is entitled to protect its subjects, when injured by act contrary to international law, committed by another state, from whom they have been unable to obtain satisfaction through the ordinary channels”[2].

Any Government therefore, has a duty to protect the legal and constitutional rights of its citizens. So too the Barbados Government has a duty to protect the legal and constitutional rights of ALL Barbadian citizens, no different from the Guyana Government’s duty to protect the interest of Guyanese nationals[3]. This goes for all CARICOM Member States.

The States in theory acts “parens patriae” to protect the interests of all of its nationals. It had such a duty in the case of Johnson v CARICAD and indeed Justice Hayton raised the issue in the proceedings why was the Barbados Government not a defendant in the proceedings before the CCJ based on the breach of that duty to protect the interests of the Plaintiff, a national of Barbados.

In the Draft Statute I proposed Article 1 stipulated that the Tribunal should be headquartered in Barbados. It now appears that CARICOM may well have accepted the need for an Administrative Tribunal. However, CARICOM’s history of implementing reform proposals has been somewhat checkered. Per P.J Patterson, implementation of decisions arising from conferences, summits, special meetings, inter-sessionals and other regional gatherings has long been a sticking point.[4] We clearly need such a tribunal. We believe that it should be located here. We ask your support in moving our government to lobby effectively for such implementation.

PILLAR NO. 2

I turn now to the question of a CARICOM Human Rights Commission.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights 1993 adopted by the Vienna World Conference states, inter alia,

“All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.[5]

The subject of Human Rights is thus of critical importance in words of Justice Higgins,

“I believe profoundly in the universality of the human spirit. Individuals every where want the same essential things: to have sufficient food and shelter; to be able to speak freely; to practice their own religion or to abstain from religious belief; to feel that their persons is threatened by the state; to know that they will not be tortured, or detained without charge and that, if charged, they will have a fair trial. I believe that there is nothing in these aspirations that is dependent upon culture, or religion, or stage of development. They are as keenly felt by the African Tribesman as by the European City dweller, by the inhabitant of a Latin American Shanty Town as by the resident of a Manhattan apartment”.[6]

It is the case today that we all recognize a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the sovereign State, but Human Rights are a different matter. Human rights standards transcend questions of internal law.

Thus, we have seen an enormous post-war growth with respect to Human Rights internationally and a large number of international conventions which speak to the issue. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948[7], The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966[8], The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966[9], The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)[10], The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951[11], The International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 1990[12].

(Even the latter issue – the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, including the question of freedom of movement implicates Human Rights. The security of migrant workers within the Caribbean is a matter of concern for all of us and, logically, should form one of the bases for a CARICOM Human Rights Commission).

Several other Conventions have been enacted to protect Human Rights., e.g. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[13], The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984[14]. The American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man 1948[15]. The American Convention on Human Rights 1969[16]. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950[17]. (Other Protocols Relating To The European Conventions). The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981)[18].

All such international conventions, at a minimum, ensure citizens six (6) core human rights: (1) the right to life, (2) liberty, (3) the right to be free from discrimination, (4) the right to be free from torture and (5) the right to be free from other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and (6) the right to a fair trial.

It is the case that we in the Caribbean have international legal obligations under the OAS Charter, the American Declaration of Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights. The Caribbean States form a discrete group (CARICOM) within the OAS and therefore must be cognizant of their obligations to protect Human Rights under the various Conventions. A CARICOM Commission on Human Rights would hear complaints relating to Human Rights and act as the guarantor of all those rights espoused in the Charter on Civil Society adopted by the Caribbean Heads of Government on 19^th February, 1997.

The facts on the ground also urge the need to consider a CARICOM Human Rights Commission, e.g. one example - the torture and recent genital mutilation of a 14 year old by members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) acting under colour of law; also the 449 killings recently reported on by the Guyana opposition parties calling for an investigation into these murders.[19]

Another example: The disappearance of 160 children in Jamaica and the inability of the Jamaica Government to resolve this issue also implicate Human Rights issues and possibly Jamaica’s obligation under the CRC. Such an issue would, in theory, be susceptible to enquiry by a CARICOM Human Rights Commission.

I need not raise at this point the issue of homophobia and violence, including murder, against homosexuals in Jamaica and elsewhere. Some years ago, Time Magazine described Jamaica as “the most homophobic place on earth”.[20] Time referred to the victim of an alleged assault by Buju Banton and a number of Banton’s associates, where the victim was blinded in one eye by kicks and blows from a board allegedly inflicted by Banton. Per Time, the case against Banton was subsequently dismissed on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence.[21] Regardless of our own personal views, homosexuals – like anyone else – have a right to life as well as all other rights guaranteed under basic human rights conventions. Also, incitement to murder - Boom Bye Bye - is unlawful and wrong, by any legal standard.[22]

With respect to Haiti, as one commentator observed:

“few places in the world, and no places in the Western Hemisphere, are poorer. The international donor community classifies Haiti as a fragile state – the Government cannot or will not deliver core functions to the majority of its people, especially the poor. Haiti is a post-conflict state - one emerging from a coup d’état and political unrest. Others have variously characterized Haiti as a nightmare, predator, collapsed, failed, failing, parasitic, plutocratic, phantom, and virtual or pariah state.”[23]

Human Rights violations in Haiti should also be susceptible to the jurisdiction or competence of a Human Rights Commission (Compare the ECHR's and the IACHR's).

Little or no use of the IACHR may well derive from the fact that it is (1) relatively remote (2) our unfamiliarity with the Inter-American Human Rights System – I suspect that few Barbadian lawyers, not to mention the Barbadian public and most policy makers, are well acquainted with the Inter-American Human Rights System, (3) costs/expense and (4) language and culture, although interpreters are provided. It is still the case that we know relatively little about the dominant OAS/Latin American Culture.

What then would be the advantages of a CARICOM Human Rights Commission?

(1) Consonant with our international Human Rights obligations

(2) relatively easy access,

(3) cheaper and

(4) the obstacles related to language and culture would be minimized.

Hopefully, justice would not only be done but would be seen to be done. A CARICOM Human Rights Commission would/should aid transparency and the Rule of Law.

The fact that the IACHR’s appears vastly underutilized by Caribbean people is therefore not a justification for not having a CARICOM Human Rights Commission. The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights established January 25, 2004,[24] has so far heard no cases. Does this mean that there have been no violations of Human Rights in Africa over the past five (5) years? (Zimbabwe, Congo, Darfur, Women in Nigeria, Kano etc.) A CARICOM Human Rights Commission should easily answer criticisms such as - remoteness, inaccessibility, being user friendly, even the issue of personal and political intimidation.

It may well be that the CCJ Original Jurisdiction (underutilized) might have to be expanded to hear Human Rights cases – after ventilation/fact finding, investigation by a Human Rights Commission. There has been talk about a Human Rights Commission in Barbados. This has not yet come to pass for whatever reason. Given the exigencies of the circumstances, it is to be hoped that a CARICOM Human Rights Commission would not be lost on the distant horizon in a maze of endless red tape and bungling bureaucracy.

The question of a CARICOM Human Rights Commission was raised by Attorney Doreen Johnson in the Stabroek News, November 17, 2009, where she not only called for a Human Rights Commission but she also called for an Ombudsman for CARICOM. A copy of her article is enclosed in the materials given to you.

This brings me to the third Pillar.

PILLAR NO. 3

The question of a CARICOM Ombudsman (Compare EU Ombudsman – not suggesting that we practice “monkeyism”).

A number of advantages attach to the Institution of the Ombudsman. A CARICOM Ombudsman would look into allegations of maladministration, waste, corruption, mismanagement, and even issues pertaining to occupational safety and health etc.

A CARICOM Ombudsman would exercise residual jurisdiction over certain complaints e.g. complaints involving migrant workers where such disputes potentially fall between the cracks, and the migrant worker is unrepresented by national labour organizations. The office would be itinerant in nature like the CCJ.

The jury is still out with respect to the success of national integrity legislation in the Caribbean. In the Regional context, however, the Ombudsman could function within the ambit of a CARICOM Model Law on Integrity, Transparency and Accountability.[25]

The Ombudsman would not only report and give recommendations. His reports and recommendations would be sent to the Secretariat and Heads of Government Conference, not merely to be debated and discussed, but to be acted upon. His/her recommendations to have, once adopted by the Conference of Head of Governments, legal force and made binding on CARICOM and the member States.

To summarize the key points with respect to a CARICOM Ombudsman:

(1) There should be established an Office of the Ombudsman, who would be selected by ballot and empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Community including persons natural and juridical of any of the Member State.

(2) The Ombudsman shall have jurisdiction over complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of all Community Institutions, Associate Institutions, Organs or Bodies.

(3) Where a prima facie case has been established, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him directly or indirectly, except where the facts alleged are sub judice or res judicata.

(4) Where the Ombudsman establishes maladministration, he shall notify the parties of his findings and give the offending party 30 days within which to remedy the delict. The offending party may file an objection to such findings within 30 days, failing which the Ombudsman’s recommendations shall become binding on the parties.

(5) The Ombudsman shall then forward a report on the matter to the Conference of Heads of Government and the Institution concerned. The Complainant shall also be informed of the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiries.

(6) The Ombudsman shall file a report annually with the Conference of Heads of Government detailing the outcome of all of his investigations.

(7) The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the Conference of Heads of Government for a period of five (5) years. (cf. Art. 205 (2) of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, specifying the tenure of arbitrators as five (5) years).

(8) The Ombudsman shall be ineligible for reappointment.

(9) The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Conference of Heads of Government where it is conclusively established that he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or where he is adjudged to be guilty of serious misconduct.

(10)The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his duties. In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any official, CARICOM Institution, Associate Institution, Organ, Body, or related entity.

(11) The Ombudsman may not, during his term of office, engage in any other occupation, paid or unpaid.

(12) The Conference of Heads of Government shall, after seeking an opinion from the Secretariat and acting by majority, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.

The Ombudsman shall be immunized and isolated from political interference, thus preserving his independence and impartiality. He shall be subject to removal ONLY by the CARICOM Heads of Government Conference, after an evidentiary hearing in which he would have had guaranteed to him similar rights as espoused in the ECHR e.g. right to a fair trial, right to he heard.[26]

CONCLUSION:

Sir Shridath Ramphal once remarked that:

“… Sometimes it seems as if small states were like small boats pushed out into a turbulent sea, free in one sense it, but without oars or provisions, compass or sails, free to perish or perhaps to be rescued and taken aboard a larger vessel”.[27]

Consider employees’ rights and basic, fundamental human rights in this context of a larger vessel, if you will.

In light of the foregoing, there should be a complete revamping and a new and improved Chapter 9 (Disputes Settlements Provisions) of the RTC.

We have urged that a CARICOM Admin. Tribunal be headquartered in Barbados. We clearly need such a tribunal. We believe that it should be located here. The CARICOM Human Rights Commission would similarly be located here along with the office of a CARICOM Ombudsman. Such a Human Rights Commission could only deepen respect for human rights in the region. An Admin Tribunal, a Human Rights Commission and an Ombudsman have in common shared ideals as to prompt and efficient administration of justice and adherence to the Rule of Law. For the last several years the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has ranked Barbados as the least corrupt among CARICOM States. The Transparency International 2008 Corruption Perception Index ranked Guyana among the 54 most corrupt countries in the world. This year, 2009, it ranked Barbados # 20, St. Lucia # 22, Dominica #34, T & T # 79, Jamaica # 99, Guyana # 126 out of the 180 states surveyed. We ask your support in moving our government to lobby effectively for implementation of the reforms we have raised.

[1] Adopted 18 April, 1961, 500 U.N.T.S. 95

[2] Mavrommattis Palestine Concessions Case, Greece v U.K. (1924) P.C.I.J. Rep. Series A, No. 2 p12

[3] “New Immigration Policy given Barbados Bad Name”, Stabroek News, Statement by President Jagdeo re protection of Guyanese nationals.

[4]. Caribbean Net News, “Jamaican Prime Minister wants permanent political institution within CARICOM”, Tuesday, July 7, 2009.

[5] Adopted by consensus 25 June 1993

[6] Roslyn Higgins, Problems and Processes: International Law and How we use it, 1994 pages 96-97

[7] Adopted 16^th Dec., 1948

[8] Adopted 16^th Dec., 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

[9] Adopted 16^th Dec., 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3

[10] (1980) 19 I.L.M. 33. See also CEDAW optional protocol 1999, (200) 7 I.H.R. 294 which provides a right of individual petition.

[11] 189 U.N.T.S. 150

[12] (1991) 30 I.L.M. 117

[13] (1989) 28 I.L.M. 1446. See also 2000 CRC Optional Protocols on Children in arm conflict and on the sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2000) 8 I.H.R.R 288, 293

[14] Adopted 10 Dec., 1984 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. See also the Optional Protocol “2002” adopted 18 Dec., 2002 U.N.G.A. A/RES/57/199.

[15] O.A.S Res. XXX adopted by the Ninth Int’l Conference of American States (1948) to Human Rights on the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc. 6 rev. I at 17 (1992)

[16] Adopted 22^nd Nov., 1968 OAS Treaty Series No. 36

[17] ETS No. 5 (protocol 11 ETS No. 155) as amended by protocol Nos. 3, 5, 8, 11 which entered into force on 21 Sept., 1970, 20 Dec., 1971, 1 Jan. 1990 and 1 Nov., 1998 respectively.

[18] Adopted 27 June 1981 1520 U.N.T.S 363

[19] Stabroek News , Nov. 18, 2009 “Dossier Ups Human Rights Probe Called – 449 Killings cited”

[20]. April 12, 2006.

[21]. Ibid. The article also states “ [i]n the past two years, two of the island’s most prominent gay activists, Brian Williamson and Steve Harvey have been murdered. Perhaps most disturbing, many anti-gay assaults have been acts of mob violence. In 2004, a teen was almost killed when his father learned his son was gay and invited a group to lynch the boy at his school. Months later, witnesses say, police egged on another mob that stabbed and stoned a gay man to death in Montego Bay. And … a Kingston man, Nokia Cowan, drowned after a crowd shouting “batty boy” … chased him off a pier.

[22]. “Artists such as Buju Banton, Bounty Killer, Beenie Man, Vybz Kartel, Movado, Elephant Man, Sizzla, Capleton, T.O.K., Anthony B and Shabba Ranks wrie and perform songs that advocate attacking or killing gays and lesbians”.. Wikipedia, “LGBT rights in Jamaica”. December 3, 2009.

[23]. Leon Charles, How Can the International Community Promote Security and Democracy in Haiti, Master’s thesis, Inter-American Defense College, Washington, USA, 05-08-2006, http://library.jid.org/en/thesis/Charles.pdf.

[24]. The Protocol to the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human Rights, adopted at Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, June 10, 1998, entered into force January 25, 2004.

[25] There have been a number of attempts at national legislation with respect to integrity legislation in the Caribbean e.g. Trinidad

[26] . See also the American Convention on Rights and Duties and the Inter-American Declaration on Human Rights, the OAS Charter.

[27]. Shridath Ramphal, Conference about General Security of the Commonwealth Nations, 1984.

2009-12-12T11:13:00.000-05:00

Carrington urges members to accept CCJ

Source: Nation News - Barbados

Published on: 12/12/2009.

CARICOM SECRETARY-GENERAL Dr Edwin Carrington has urged more members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to follow in the footsteps of Jamaica in accepting the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final appellate court.

During a year-end review of CARICOM's accomplishments by the secretariat on Thursday with the regional media through a video conferencing session, Carrington said that Jamaica's decision to accept the CCJ was evidence of the strength of the regional integration process. Carrington said several member states abandoned the Privy Council decades ago, with sound jurisprudential success to show for the decision.

He expressed his confidence in the qualifications and integrity of the judicial bench of the CCJ, as well as in the existing mediums, claiming they now guaranteed the sustainability of the court.

The CCJ was created in 2005 as the supreme judicial organ for the CARICOM member states. In its original jurisdiction it ensured uniform interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty Of Chaguaramas, thereby underpinning and advancing the CARICOM Single Market and Economy.

As the final court of appeal it promotes the development of an indigenous Caribbean jurisprudence but although all 15 member states CARICOM have accepted the court in its original jurisdiction, only Barbados and Guyana have adopted it as their final court of appeal.

2009-12-11T10:51:00.001-05:00

MANLEY WOULD HAVE BACKED CCJ OVER PRIVY COUNCIL, SAYS VASCIANNIE

BY HG HELPS

Source: Jamaica Observer

Published: Friday, December 11, 2009

IF former prime minister Michael Manley were alive, he would have opted for the Jamaica having a new final appellate court, a leading academic has suggested.

Professor Stephen Vasciannie, in delivering the eighth Michael Manley lecture at the University of the West Indies yesterday, argued that Manley would have grown tired of having the United Kingdom Privy Council as its final appellate court and instead would have opted for the Caribbean Court of Justice to play that role.

"I take the opportunity to say that the logic of Michael Manley's views on the sovereign equality of states and his devotion to self-reliance both suggest that he would now think that the time for the Caribbean Court of Justice is long overdue," Vasciannie said to applause from the packed graduate lecture theatre at the Sir Alister McIntyre building.

"In recent months, there have been signals that the Privy Council is impatient with our continued reliance on them as our final appellate court. At the same time, the salient objections that have been raised about the Caribbean Court of Justice have been fully addressed; the Court is operating, and it has given judgments of the highest authority and erudition," Vasciannie said.

The former deputy solicitor general and present principal of the Norman Manley Law School said that there appears to be a lack of confidence on the part of Jamaica in not wanting to make the switch.

"The reluctance to move towards the Caribbean Court of Justice on the part of Jamaica can now really be attributed to our lack of self-confidence as a people. As both President de la Bastide and Lord Hoffmann agree, the final appellate court of any jurisdiction is called upon to make policy choices in making decisions, especially in areas pertaining to individual rights, and the rights of persons vis-a-vis the State," he said.

"These policy choices are best made by judges who have intimate knowledge of the socio-economic and cultural environment from which the cases emanate.

"Consider the proposed Charter of Rights: Both the Executive and the Legislature in Jamaica have been responsible for the terms of the re-draft of our fundamental rights and freedoms, taking into account local circumstances. By what line of reasoning may we now conclude that our judges are not as good as other judges in determining what these rights mean in the same local circumstances?" Vasciannie asked.

The lecture, which attracted members of the top brass of the Jamaican legal fraternity as well as influential members of the opposition People's National Party, was based upon the theme 'Jamaica and the World: Issues of International Law'.

In hailing the work of Manley, who led Jamaica as prime minister from 1972 to 1980 and again from 1989 to 1992, Vasciannie said that the former economist and trade unionist -- by virtue of the power of his words and his convictions -- left an "indelible mark on the political history of Jamaica".

"Michael Manley is still living in our world of contested ideas. His works of scholarship still provide challenges, still cause you to hold on to the edges of your now receding hairline as you contemplate ideas that you first noted in adolescence," Vasciannie said.

2009-12-09T11:44:00.002-05:00

Commentary: More countries showing interest in joining CCJ
Source: Caribbean Net News

By Oscar Ramjeet
Published on Wednesday, December 9, 2009

It is more than four and a half years since the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was inaugurated and, so far, no other jurisdiction has joined Guyana and Barbados in accepting the CCJ as the final appellate court.

I read with great interest a statement made by St Lucia Oppositon leader, Kenny Anthony, calling for a region wide simultantous move to join the regional court.

He added that he does not believe that any government should go into amending their particular constitution to facilitate accesssion without securing the agreement of the opposition.

I wonder why when politicians are in the opposition they call on government to take action and when they are in power, they do not comply. Anthony was prime minister when the Court was inaugurated in April 2005. In fact he was present at the lavish ceremony in Port of Spain, and he was in government for 20 long months and he failed to set in motion for his country to remove the Privy Council as the final Court and replace it with the CCJ.

Now he is out of government, he wants co-operation between the government and opposition to join the regional court. This a good move on his part, but he should have done so when he was in government.

There are several factors why some countries are/were reluctant to join the regional court. Jamaica for instance, which was in the forefront in the establishment of the Court, lost interest. Former Attorney General Dr Oswald Harding, who is the current President of the Court of Appeal. who was the main advocate for the court in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said that, although Jamaica is contributing 27% towards the operation of the court, no Jamaican has been appointed as judge, although seven senior well qualified lawyers had applied for the position, and they were all by passed for persons who were less qualified.

He added also the former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson tried to railroad Jamaica's entry and failed to carry out the correct legal procedure to remove the Privy Council as the final Court, which was later struck down by the London-based final court.

The rejection by the electorate in St Vincent and the Grenadines of the November 25 referendum should not be used as a yardstick in the region to measure the thinking of the people whether or not to accept the CCJ as the final Court. I think there were other factors why that referendum failed.

Antigua and Barbuda Attorney General, Justin Simon, made the point that the results of the St Vincent rederendum should not deter other jurisdictions from seeking constitutional changes to accommodate the regional Court.

Belize will soon join the regional court. Jamaica has reconsidered its position and will soon put the mechanism in place to do so and a few OECS states including Grenada, Antigua, and St Lucia are also willing.

Trinidad and Tobago, which spearded the establishment of the Court along with Jamaica, will take some time before it comes on board. The reason being that it must first secure the approval of the Opposition, and Basdeo Panday's UNC is not interested... at least not for now.

Lets hope by the end of next year at least three other jurisdictions will be on board.

2009-12-08T10:25:00.001-05:00

Letter: The people decided! Stop misrepresenting us

Published on Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Source: Caribbean Net News

Dear Sir:

In an article posted on 27th November 2009 on caribbeandailynews.com entitled “St Vincent: PM Gonsalves blanks snap poll”, Dr Gonsalves is quoted as explaining that by rejecting the proposed new constitution in the referendum on November 25, 2009, Vincentians have "freed him from a restraint". This is misleading and misrepresents us. Whilst the constitution bill 2009 proposed to give a specific period (not date) when elections would be called in the future if it had passed, it was not yet law. Thus the Prime minister was still under the existing constitution of 1979 which allows him to call what we have often referred to as "snap elections".

Nobody could have freed the prime minister from something that never bound him! He should stop trying to make us look silly by his misleading talk. I despise this speech coming from a leader of government, concerning his people, just because he has not truly accepted their choice. Furthermore, I am concerned at the way Vincentians are being represented as stupid and dotish to the region. Certain issues which were highlighted in our reform process are being misrepresented by pieces I have read and heard from journalists in the region:

1. The people did not, for example, vote to keep the queen and not have our own head of state in a president, as I've heard it is being presented. The opposition called for a president too but they wanted a president who would be elected by the people and not the house of assembly. In other words the people wanted more than a titular president, more than what would have essentially been a governor general named president.

2. This talk about Vincentians preferring to stay behind in colonialism rather than moving forward is not true and talking with people on the ground here will assist in correcting this misrepresentation of us. It is a forward stand to reject a bill that was against God-given rights and freedoms and the prime minister and drafters who sought to push it down our throats. It is the PM and his cabinet running this country and who proposed the dead bill, not the Queen.

3. The proposed bill has also been touted as one which "effectively restored the death penalty" and as such Vincentians are represented as having rejected the death penalty by voting no. The truth is the proposal did not restore the death penalty as the death penalty is still the punishment for murder recognized on our law books. Furthermore, the proposal in the bill which Vincentians killed on November 25th did not guarantee automatic carrying out of the death penalty. It merely stated that parliament would now define killing that is capital and killing that is not.

4. Vincentians did not say no to the CCJ on November 25th. It is misleading to say that the proposed bill would have automatically put us on the CCJ if we had said yes. What the bill in fact proposed was to remove the referendum requirement in the future from any bill brought to substitute the Privy Council with another court (it did not say CCJ) and it spoke about another court either with OECS or CARICOM countries or any other country or countries. It said that instead of having to go to the people in a referendum to decide this, such a bill would only require a simple majority of votes in the house of parliament/assembly. That is the fact! Vincentians were upset because we did not want to give up our votes in a referendum to decide on this single issue. One has to also remember that this was brought in a whole document with so many other issues to be decided on in one referendum. There was no attempt to do this by amendments.

A matter as serious as where Vincentians go for final appeals should not be strung together with other issues. It should be a separate matter by itself for careful study, consideration and then a vote in a referendum. Let the full story and truth be told.

We are a wise people here. We voted no against government's refusal to put a beautiful phrase into our preamble that strengthened the principles upon which we are founded by declaring our rights to be God-given and inalienable. We said no because government refused to define "adequate compensation" for compulsorily acquired property as "not less than current market value" and so many other reasons too. And since we had no choice to say yes to all or no to all, since we were not allowed to vote by amendments, we had to consider the things that were most against us and vote no...Not to constitution reform, not to a people elected president, not to the CCJ if the people say in a separate referendum they want it, not to moving from colonialism. We voted no for our freedoms!

May God have mercy upon us for the evil tarnishing that has been done to our reputation. The truth is there to be told however.

Anesia Baptiste
Associate Director
Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty Inc.
St Vincent & the Grenadines

2009-12-07T13:04:00.001-05:00

Mixed reviews for CCJ

Source: Jamaica Gleaner

Published: Monday | December 7, 2009

Despite assurances from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) about measures put in place for the independence of the court, Susan Goffe of Jamaicans for Justice is expressing some concern about how it is administered.

Goffe noted that while there was a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission to oversee the selection of judges, the arrangements do not go far enough to ensure the legitimacy and security of the court.

Goffe added that more changes are needed to secure the independence and permanence of the court than the amendments already made to the Treaty of Chaguaramas. This treaty is the agreement between the Caribbean states, setting up the CCJ, among other things.

Goffe believes that any legitimisation of the court should be done by enshrining whatever changes there should be in the Jamaican Constitution. With that said, she believes serious national discourse should begin.

Judiciary independence vital

Answers to concerns about the independence of the court from manipulation are posted on the CCJ website.

"It is generally accepted in our societies that independence of the judiciary is a vital and essential ingredient of the rule of law, a basic principle of social engineering in CARICOM member states.

"To ensure independence of the members of the court, appropriate provisions have been elaborated in the agreement establishing the CCJ to provide for credible institutional arrangements," the website read.

It continued: "First, unlike the situation with the European Court of Justice, where Judges are appointed by the ministers of government, judges of the CCJ are appointed by a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, whose composition should offer a reasonable degree of comfort to the court's detractors."

The funding of the court by member states of CARICOM has also raised the spectre of influence by these same states. However, the CCJ on its website said that certain steps have been put in place to ensure that this does not occur.

"In order to pre-empt this eventuality, the heads of government have mandated the ministers of finance to provide funding for the recurrent expenses of the court for the first five years of its operation."

A trust fund has been established and capitalised in the sum of US$100 million, so as to enable the recurrent expenditure of the court to be financed by income from the fund which is administered by the Caribbean Development Bank.

Former Solicitor General Michael Hylton said this provision has earned his confidence in the court.

Beyond the rules

"Political influence doesn't mean that a politician is going to call you and tell you what to do, but if a country doesn't like a judgment, it can withdraw its payment. This cannot occur under the treaty and with the trust fund that is set up," he said.

Attorney-at-law R.N.A Henriques, however, believes that independence goes beyond just putting in rules.

"We have had a history in Jamaica, where the bias of rulings are in favour of the government in cases. Therefore one is not really insulated by a Constitution. The dispensation of the rulings will be based on integrity not by what is in the constitution. Time will tell, that is why it is important that the judges are of a certain calibre."

2009-12-07T12:48:00.005-05:00

CCJ judges: Quality, method of appointment debated

Source: Jamaica Gleaner

Published: Monday December 7, 2009

Robust and sometimes fiery debates erupt when there is an argument about Jamaica making the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) its final court of appeal, replacing of the Privy Council. Questions of jurisprudence come to the fore in these debates which seem set to rage on some more, with persons adamant that the present judges on the CCJ Bench do not fit the bill.

While it is receiving strong support in some quarters, prominent attorney R.N.A. Henriques, is not yet ready to welcome the CCJ and its judges, simply because he does not believe that the judges on the court now are of the same standard as those at the Privy Council. He said that if the CCJ will replace the long serving judges of the Privy Council, the judges chosen should be of equal or higher calibre. He seems less than impressed with the current set on the CCJ bench.

Incorrect process

"In my view the selection process for the CCJ was not correct. I know that the CCJ respects transparency by advertisements inviting applicants for appointment as judges of the court. But persons of judicial excellence are not going to demean themselves and apply. I believe that the court should have invited judges who they think are of the highest quality," he told The Gleaner.

Henriques would like to see this changed. He even suggested inviting some members of the Privy Council to sit on the CCJ to help the court in its infancy.

However, Michael Hylton, another prominent Jamaican attorney, believes that the process by which the CCJ has gone about attracting judges ensures that the best minds are contracted.

"There has been a criticism of the benches here that, unlike the culture in England, where the top lawyers become the top judges, here that is not the case. I believe the CCJ has done all the right things to attract the best people, research facilities and pay," he said.

Questions about CCJ suitability surfaced again when Lord Nicholas Phillips, the man now heading Briitan's new Supreme Court, in a recent interview with the Financial Times, lamented that more than 40 per cent of the time of Britain's most senior judges is spent on Privy Council cases.

"I personally would like to see it reduced," he said.

That set off another round of national discourse with some of the nations top lawyers giving their view about the quality work of the court' judgments thus far.

Long overdue

Long-time CCJ advocate David Coore says it is due time Jamaica makes the CCJ its final court. Coore, a lawyer before Jamaica gained Independence in 1962, said the question of the quality of judges in the Caribbean should not be an issue.

"I have always been a strong supporter. No doubt the Caribbean has produced jurists of the highest quality and we have shown that in the past, in the days of the Federation (of the West Indies), with the Federal Court of Appeal and the quality of that appeal court," he said.

Coore said the quality of the jurisprudence should also not be questioned, as the judgments that he has seen from the CCJ, which has been in operation since 2005 have been well thought out and reasoned.

Hylton agrees with Coore.

"In the four years since it has been in existence, there have been some excellent judgments. I have heard no criticism of the judgments; the only criticism I have heard is that they have little work to test them," he said.

One trade case

Since its inception, the CCJ has heard 39 cases. However, only one of them has focused on human rights. The others have dealt with trade issues.

Anthony Gifford is another lawyer who has praised the makeup of the court and the decisions they have made. In an emailed response to Gleaner questions, Gifford said that while it is too early to judge the record of the court, the judgment in the Joseph and Boyce case was sound.

"The judgments in the death penalty case, Attorney General of Barbados vs Joseph and Boyce, are particularly impressive, drawing on international human-rights precedents to reach a just decision which saved the lives of two men. Seven judges gave six separate judgments; in the Privy Council, you never get more than one judgment unless there are dissenting voices," he said.