Showing posts with label St. Vincent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St. Vincent. Show all posts

December 09, 2009

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.

December 08, 2009

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

December 02, 2009

Cayman Islands and Independence

Editorial: Will independence ever be the answer?
Source: Cayman Net News
Published on Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Last week’s referendum result in St Vincent and the Grenadines, when the country’s voters decisively rejected a move to adopt a new constitution removing the Queen as head of state and abandoning the UK’s Privy Council in favour of the Caribbean Court of Justice, is unusual in that it appears to go against the flow of regional desires to sever the last bastions of colonial ties.

The issue of independence for the Cayman Islands is one that has been increasingly mooted in recent months, no doubt as a result of Britain’s intransigence in relation to borrowing our way out of financial failure and our economic model generally.

Although the question of independence has not yet been raised with any great fervour, there are people of influence in these islands who support -- at times not so secretly -- the notion and who accordingly promote and support those politicians who may be similarly inclined.

And, granted, we have surely been given cause to re-examine the benefits of our historical ties to Britain in the light of the various events that have taken place during the last couple of years.

However, the prospect of independence has never been a major factor in our political landscape, unlike other British Overseas Territories in the region, notably, Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos Islands, where it has formed from time to time a significant election issue.

Once its former Caribbean colonies began to achieve independence in 1962, Britain’s policy has been to withdraw from individual security, but not economic commitments, to the Commonwealth Caribbean. British interests in the region have been reduced mainly to trade, investment, and limited economic and security assistance.

What arguments are likely to be advanced in favour of independence for the Cayman Islands? One could certainly say that we would not be completely on our own. As a full member of the Commonwealth, we could expect some financial aid in case of need from the larger countries.

But then, who is to say that we will benefit anyway if we remain under British rule, given the independent spirit the Caymanians in dealing with their economic and social affairs, for example, in the wake of Hurricane Ivan.

Even Grenada, which is a fully independent nation, got more hurricane relief aid from Britain than Cayman.

Some five years ago – shortly before Ivan struck, in fact – there was something of a fuss when a delegation from Cayman Islands non-governmental organisations (NGOs) addressed the United Nations Special Committee of 24 (C24) on Decolonisation in New York and claimed that there had been “misleading representations” by the British Government dating back to the 1960s regarding its obligations under various UN resolutions dealing with self-determination.

Although the most recent pronouncement by the C24 concerning the Cayman Islands is somewhat anodyne – it merely notes the finalisation of the new constitution and recommends that participate in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) as a new associate member – it would seem from a contemporaneous statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the C24 may well adopt a more active approach in promoting independence for all 16 remaining non-self-governing territories. In fact, Mr Ban said that the United Nations must step up its decolonisation efforts.

Decolonisation “is an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long,” he said.

In the last two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Mr Ban called for the acceleration of the UN’s work to “achieve concrete results.”

He told the C24 to continue its support of the “legitimate aspirations of the people of non-self-governing territories so they can exercise their right to self-determination.”

So far as we know, Britain will never force us to become independent but the views, activities and resources of world bodies such as the C24 will certainly lend support to any local interests that wish to take up such a cause.

On February 4, 1960, former British Prime Minister and consummate politician of his era, Harold Macmillan, in speaking about the future of Africa, coined the memorable phrase: “The wind of change is blowing through the Continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.”

At that time, the use of this simple metaphor in relation to the turmoil of African affairs was most apt and may still prove to be relevant to an increasing acceptance of the notion of independence for the Cayman Islands.

November 29, 2009

LESSONS FROM SAINT VINCENT FOR JAMAICA

by CLAUDE ROBINSON

Source: Jamaica Observer

Published: Sunday, November 29, 2009

Queen Elizabeth II arrived in Trinidad and Tobago last Thursday for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to what must be good news for the monarchy: The people of St Vincent and the Grenadines had voted decisively in a referendum to retain her as their Queen and head of state.

The "No" vote of 55.64 per cent was a huge rebuff for Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves who may have timed the vote to coincide with the Queen's presence in the Caribbean, hoping that an affirmative "Yes" would have been a triumphal way to say goodbye to a powerful symbol of British colonial rule.

While the referendum results are of primary interest to the people of St Vincent and the Grenadines, it is also significant for other regional countries, especially Jamaica where political administrations have wrestled with the same constitutional question the Vincentians have just settled.

A yes vote would have allowed St Vincent and the Grenadines to join Trinidad and Tobago, Dominica and Guyana as the only Caribbean Community (Caricom) countries to sever constitutional ties with Buckingham Palace and select their head of state from among their own people.

Guyana has an executive president, which makes Bharrat Jagdeo head of state and head of government; while Dominica and Trinidad and Tobago have 'ceremonial' presidents with effective power remaining in the hands of the prime minister.

Since the 1970s Jamaica has been engaged in a tortuous constitutional reform process, including breaking ties with the Queen as head of state and establishing a republic similar to Trinidad's. However, the issue has never been put to the people as successive administrations remain spooked by the 1961 referendum against West Indian federation promoted by Norman Manley and the People's National Party (PNP) and opposed by Alexander Bustamante and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP).

One of the questions arising from last Wednesday's referendum result is the extent to which Caribbean people wish to retain links to British symbols. Or was it simply a statement on the stewardship of Prime Minister Gonsalves?

The referendum would have replaced the St Vincent constitution in force since independence in 1979. The "No" vote of 55.64 per cent was well short of the required two-thirds threshold.

How could Prime Minister Gonsalves have got it so wrong? What happened since the last general election in 2005 in which he and his Unity Labour Party (ULP) got 55.26 per cent of the vote and 12 of the 15 seats in Parliament?

In the campaign leading up to the vote, the prime minister stressed that although he had nothing personally against Queen Elizabeth II, it was time for Saint Vincent to stop having a monarch as its head of state: "I find it a bit of a Nancy story that the Queen of England can really be the Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines."

According to some St Vincent watchers, the referendum result may be a reflection of some unease among voters for the prime minister's reputed affinity towards executive presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and former Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

However, that view was contradicted by the campaign rhetoric in which Mr Gonsalves asserted that the proposed constitution for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines would not have created an executive president because that would give the office holder too much power in the small country, he said in an interview reported in the Trinidad Express.

On the other hand, the Opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) advocated for a "No" vote on the proposals, disputing Mr Gonsalves' assertion that a "Yes" would reduce the power of the prime minister, increase the power of the Opposition and strengthen the country's democracy.

Lessons for Mr Golding

What lessons can Prime Minister Bruce Golding draw from the outcome in St Vincent as he contemplates the idea of a referendum to determine whether Jamaica should adopt the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the country's final court of appeal, replacing the British Privy Council?

As it stands, Jamaica can adopt the CCJ as its final court of appeal without a referendum, according to expert opinion. However, in order to entrench the court in the Jamaican constitution the people of Jamaica must agree in a referendum. The argument is that because the Privy Council is now entrenched in the constitution, any court that replaces it would also have to be entrenched.

While I support the CCJ as our final appeal court, I also believe that this matter must be put to a referendum, given divided opinion on the issue.

These divisions may have been sharpened last week by the Privy Council ruling in favour of Mr Ezroy Millwood and the National Transportation Cooperative Society. Some will view the judgement as justice, finally, for the beleaguered franchise, while others may regard it as an imposition by 'foreign' judges that will cost taxpayers some $1.85 billion.

Of course, one way of securing a predicted outcome in a referendum is where the two parties - governing and opposition - agree on the matter to be decided and neither would seek to take advantage of the other. But even here the outcome may not be assured.

Speaking with Beverley Manley on Hot 102 the day after the losing the vote in St Vincent, Mr Gonsalves indicated that the two parties had earlier agreed to support the "Yes" vote. His clear implication was that the opposition had backtracked.

News out of St Vincent offered an explanation for the change of heart: NDP leader Arnhim Eustace opined that the two sides had failed to reach an agreement on a number of fundamental issues, including the Integrity Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the ombudsman, and the Electoral and Boundaries Commission.

In other words, the opposition appeared to have tied its support for a "Yes" vote to other issues of human rights and accountability, which it considered important. Or they may have smelled that the government was politically vulnerable.

Thus, another lesson is that a referendum is not always about the specific item on the ballot paper and can easily become a statement on the performance of the government. Simply put, referenda are fraught with political danger.

In the context of the current economic challenges faced by all governments in the region, voters are concerned about the ability of incumbents to increase opportunity, improve living standards and maintain social peace. Opposition parties are sniffing power.

Finally, it may also be that a majority of voters want to retain their connection and find no problem with an anachronism of a governor general as the Queen's representative in Jamaica instead of being a symbol of the Jamaican people.

It is also significant that the vote came as the 53-member grouping of Britain and its former colonies spread across the globe was meeting in Port of Spain trying to find relevance in the new balance of power in the world.

In these circumstances, Mr Golding is unlikely to test the waters about entrenching the CCJ any time soon. On the larger issue of changing the Jamaican constitution to have a president as the Jamaican head of state, we can, in the famous words of former prime minister PJ Patterson, 'forget it'.

November 23, 2009

VINCENTIAN REFERENDUM: A CASE OF TOO MUCH, TOO LATE?

By Rickey Singh

Source: The Jamaica Observer

Published : Sunday, November 22, 2009

THE court battle to block a national referendum taking place this Wednesday (Nov 25) on a new constitution for St Vincent and the Grenadines may turn out to be a case of too much, too late.

Last Wednesday (Nov 18) a High Court judge chose tomorrow (Monday) to begin the hearing of the petition filed by a four-member "no vote committee" seeking to block the referendum, called to either endorse or reject the proposed new constitution.

The committee members, known to be associated with the parliamentary opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) of Arnhim Eustace, are contending that it was unlawful, discriminatory and immoral for state funds to be made available only to the "yes vote" campaigners of the governing Unity Labour Party (ULP) of Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves.

Lawyers for the state, on the other hand, plan to outline why the application to fund the "no vote" referendum campaign should be dismissed as being without merit, frivolous and vexatious.

At stake for the government is the big challenge of securing a "yes vote", with two-thirds of the eligible electorate, for the new post-independence constitution.

Among its significant features will be the end to a governance system with the British monarch as Head of State and replacement of the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the country's final appellate institution. Empowerment of the parliamentary opposition is also another major provision.

The immediate challenge is for the government's legal team to succeed, either tomorrow (Monday) or on Wednesday, in getting the presiding judge to grant a customary seven-day period for a response to the petition filed by the "no vote committee".

It is the prevailing view in legal circles that it would be consistent with established practice for the judge to allow the argument in favour of the respondent.

This therefore means that while the legal battle is being waged in the High Court in Kingstown on Wednesday, Vincentians will be casting their ballots at polling stations on referendum day - for or against the new constitution.

The question being discussed in political and legal circles is whether this scenario amounts to a national issue of too much, too late.

Too much, that is, to ignore parliament's stamp of democratic approval for the new constitution to be endorsed, or rejected, at a national referendum; and too little in terms of an apparent feeble effort - no known militant, focused opposition, and at a comparatively late stage, to block Wednesday's historic decision by the electorate.

Although approved by a two-thirds parliamentary majority last September 3 in the 15-member House of Assembly, a two-thirds majority is also required at a national referendum for the new constitution to come into force.

The government's response to its opponents has been that the new constitution was approved by a two-thirds majority after widespread national consultations on constitutional reform.

The parliamentary opposition NDP was involved, it said, in both the constitution reform process as well as the parliamentary debates for approval of the new constitution that is now the subject of Wednesday's referendum.

As argued by Prime Minister Gonsalves, funding for the educational campaign on constitutional reform was borne by the state with help from the Organisation of American States.

"Now that the required two-thirds parliamentary majority approval of the new constitution was obtained, I find it strange for the government to allocate state funds for the NDP to oppose the decision of the National Assembly," he said.

Gonsalves' NDP opponents, for their part, have dismissed his argument as engaging "in sheer political sophistry". Nevertheless, clarification has been lacking on why the clamour for state funds in support of a "no vote" campaign was not made during the House debate on Wednesday's referendum.

When told about the moral argument contention of the government's opponents on the sharing of state funds for the referendum campaign, Prime Minister Gonsalves claimed that the NDP had "fallen under foreign influence to create confusion" and was now "panicking" because of the nature of its campaign that "engages in superficialities rather than one of substance".

He said he was "very optimistic" for a required two-thirds "yes" vote (approximately 67 per cent of the voting electorate).

At the last general election of December 2005, the incumbent ULP secured 55.26 per cent of the valid votes and 12 of the 15 seats compared with the NDP's 44.68 per cent vote and three seats.

October 27, 2009

CCJ judge says it is insulting to continue using British Privy Council

NEW YORK, CMC

As the debate rages over the wisdom of using the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final court of appeal in the region, one of the court’s justices says it is insulting to continue using the British Privy Council.

“There was a time when we had no choice but to utilise the Privy Council as our final court of appeal,” Justice Adrian Saunders told a St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ Independence Luncheon in Brooklyn on Sunday.

“But today, in my view, it is an insult to the dignity of our people that we should continue to entrust the tasks of adjudging our disputes and protecting our democracy to the judges of another civilization, especially when we have established our own final court,” he added.

The Vincentian-born jurist, the only justice from the sub-regional Organisation of Eastern Caribbean Court (OECS) currently sitting on the CCJ, was the keynote speaker at the event marking St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ 30th anniversary of political independence on Tuesday.

Justice Saunders said abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, “in effect, completes the circle of our independence,” adding that scepticism against the Trinidad and Tobago-based CCJ “boils down to a lack of faith, an absence of trust.

“It is this same scepticism, this absence of confidence that the faint-hearted experienced when we established our own University of the West Indies in Jamaica in 1948; when we began training our own doctors; when we established our own Council of Legal Education in 1970 to train our own lawyers; when we, in St Vincent and the Grenadines, proceeded to Associated Statehood in 1969; and when, ultimately, we obtained political independence 30 years ago,” he said.

“The historians will record that, at every single one of these stages, there have been those timorous souls who were unable to bring themselves to believe in their own capacity as a proud people to deliver a quality product and to be as good as the best anywhere else.”

Justice Saunders said the region’s people will never advance if they continue to regard themselves as being inferior.

“Yes, it is a challenge, but I believe we are perfectly capable of fashioning and maintaining appropriate institutions; and, in the judicial field in particular, the Caribbean has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to produce outstanding jurists acclaimed throughout the world, even as their exploits are rarely mentioned in the region,” he said.

The judge said two United Nations’ Specialised Criminal Courts are headed by Caribbean nationals, identifying them as Jamaican Judge, Patrick Robinson, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and Sir Dennis Byron, a Kittitian, who is President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Recently, president of the new Supreme Court in Britain, Lord Phillips, called on Caribbean countries to establish their own final court of appeal.

Lord Phillips told London’s Financial Times newspaper that he plans to curb the “disproportionate” time he and his fellow senior justices have been spending in hearing legal appeals from independent countries from the Caribbean and other Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council.

Lord Phillips added that, “in an ideal world,” former Commonwealth countries would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal instead.

The CCJ, established by regional governments in 2001, has both an original and appellate jurisdiction.

But, while most of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries are members of the original jurisdiction that functions as an international tribunal, hearing disputes arising from the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty under the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME), only Barbados and Guyana have signed on to the appellate jurisdiction.

Justice Saunders said the short answer to stop using the Privy Council is “because they would like us to stop burdening them with our appeals”.

But he added there is a “more fundamental reason” why the region needs its own court, stating that law is a “social tool” and that the function of a final court is to use this tool “to make the society a better place, in order to protect and enhance our democracy.”

“Judges who sit and reside in the Caribbean are better equipped to perform this role,” Justice Saunders emphasised.

“They are near to and aware and sensitive of the values, traditions, customs and norms of our people,” he added.

“The truth of the matter is that no judge can be fully effective if the judge is out of touch, if the judge has no personal insights into the broad values of the society and does not understand, appreciate and personally experience the consequences of the judgments the judge delivers.”

Justice Saunders applauded the Guyana and Barbados governments for replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ as their final court almost five years ago.

“And people of those states have expressed satisfaction with the performance of the court. I know that it won’t be long before the other states in the region come on board,” he added

October 06, 2009

Commentary: Law and Politics: Progress and change must go together
Published on Tuesday, October 6, 2009
By Lloyd Noel
Source: Caribbean Net News


Progress is not a movement from some bad place where you think you are, to some perfect place you would like to be. Progress is about the development of oneself and by extension that of the society as a whole.

And in our situation in Grenada today, change is not just a promise, it is an absolute necessity that we must change the society as a whole.

To do otherwise is like saying to those coming thereafter, that if Tom Dick and Harry, could get away with the wrong-doing in public office then so can you; and the need for genuine change to bring about real progress, will remain a hopeless dream and pie in the sky wishful thinking, that will always take us backwards and never forward.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that the society we are struggling under, for the majority to make a living of survival now-a-days, must be changed, turned around or upside down, taken or removed from the state or feeling of stagnation or hopelessness and pushed, or prodded, or whatever it may take, to bring about some measure of progress and peaceful living and genuine survival.

The lawlessness in too many areas are becoming the order of the day, whether it is simply walking into people’s yard or areas around the houses, and taking away any and everything they can carry; or going into gardens and farmlands and either stealing crops to go and sell, as though they planted and cared them for market; or maliciously chopping up and rooting up fruits and plants and leaving the poor farmer in economic distress; and even cruelly damaging animals and poultry for pure spite, because the culprits have some grudge or axe to grind with the owners, all these and those are now common place all over the country side.

Some people are behaving as though they have no regard, or respect, or concern for lawful authority and the consequences that would flow from being caught and prosecuted.

And to make bad matters even worse when they are caught and found guilty, and the magistrate impose the penalty provided by the law, others misguidedly take it upon themselves to protest, and complain and accuse the magistrate for being too harsh and draconian in enforcing the law. We need more such judicial officers, like the very fearless one we have in the Western district.

We are hearing about violent incidents with knives and cutlasses now-a-day, as though the law pertaining to offensive weapons has been abolished.

The police force have to be much more proactive with their presence and operations all over the country and not just for Marijuana plants detection.

The rise in criminal activities is escalating far too rapidly and remedial action must be taken without further delay to curb this menace, or else we will soon join our neighbours to the North and South in terms of their frightening reputation for uncontrollable violent crimes.

And should that situation ever be reached in these Isles, it would be worse than a hurricane disaster, because the one attribute we have and it remained intact after Ivan and Emily, is that all our visitors from wherever are always commenting with confidence how peaceful and safe and fearless they feel on the streets and other night spots when in Grenada.

True enough one or two ugly incidents have occurred in the recent past involving a few visitors, but those few have been isolated instances that must be kept that way.

We cannot afford to pretend, that we do not know or not hearing about the wrong-doing taking place around the country, and getting worse and more tragic with every other incident and close our eyes and ears to the reality.

Because if we continue to maintain that position, and always feeling the problem is for those in authority to solve and nothing to do with us the shock waves will be much harder to cope with when it reaches our door steps, as it most certainly will in one way or another.

We have to be our brothers and sisters keeper and share their grief; we have to co-operate with the law enforcement officers, and those in control and authority, to help bring about the changes that are necessary if we truly want to see progress for our people.

And in talking about change and progress at this time, and about what is taking place around the Island of Grenada especially – in connection with the increasing incidents of criminal activities and lawlessness in general – the topic of our final Court of Appeal at the Privy Council in London, for all our English speaking CARICOM states except Barbados and Guyana, has again raised its troublesome head for further discussion and decision among other states.

All the CARICOM states upon gaining their Independence from the early nineteen sixties continued to use the Privy Council as their Final Court of Appeal.

Among all the other reasons, it was a free service to all Commonwealth countries from the motherland and the Head of State in Her Majesty.

And even when many of the bigger states opted for Republican status with their local Head of State, they still kept the Privy Council as their Final Court of Appeal. Trinidad and Tobago is a good example right next door.

In our cases in the OECS, we had no choice because we simply could not afford to finance a Final Court of Appeal, in addition to the first Court of Appeal we were already sharing as the Associated States Supreme Court.

Guyana dropped the Privy council when it went Republic and the Barbados government was peeved over a decision against it from the Privy Council and decided to go its own way, although it kept the Queen as the Head of State, and continued to be called or known as little England.

The Privy Council is staffed by Law Lords from the Former House of Lords – or Upper House of the British Parliament in England. And that in itself was a very peculiar arrangement that could perhaps only operate in England where so many things, and systems, and ways of life, have for centuries functioned on the basis and strengths of convention.

In effect those Law Lords – very distinguished and learned lawyers, who became judges and later elevated to the highest level of the Court of Appeal – were sitting in Parliament where the laws are made, and later on sitting in a court as judges to rule on the very laws.

Now from the first of October, 2009, that peculiar system is no more in existence. From that date the Supreme Court of England has taken over the role of the House of Lords as the Final Appellate Court in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales (The British Isles).

Under the new law passed through Parliament, eleven of those Law Lords who form that court, have moved out of Parliament and into their own independent Supreme Court Building, to sit only as Appeal Court Judges.

And going with them into that new setting is the long standing portfolio of the Final Appellate Court of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, for those Commonwealth Countries which still maintain that judicial linkage.

And with that change in the British Legal system that has been in existence for many, many centuries, and has served us with distinction, integrity, and enduring confidence since independence, the hue and cry has already started, that we in the CARICOM region must see this move as the beginning of the end, and make haste to find our own Caribbean Final Appellate Court.

This call to cut our ties with England as the final Appellate Court is not new.

In fact our CARICOM leaders some years ago amended the Treaty of Chaguaramas, to bring into force the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME), and in that amended treaty that ALL the region’s leaders at the time signed, provision is made therein for the (CCJ) Caribbean Court of Justice, which is expected to perform a dual role as our highest court in the region.

The first role deals with disputes among or between states, over the interpretation of the CSME. Rules and Procedures, and that came into operation as a matter of course.

The bigger problem concerns the second role of the CCJ, as the Final Appellate Court for those states in CARICOM which have been using the Privy Council as such, from the time of their Independence.

Of course, Guyana and Barbados had opted out of that arrangement before the CSME came into being, so they are the only two states now using the CCJ as their Final Court of Appeal.

Needless to emphasize the point that the whole exercise towards bringing the remaining states into readiness to adopt the new court as their Final Appellate Court is fully tied up or entangled in politics between opposition groups in the respective states.

The governments in power either have to go to the people by way of a referendum for authority, or must have a certain level of the majority seats in Parliament to be able to pass the enabling legislation.

And therein lays the dilemma towards any formal movement. Even those who signed the CSME Treaty when they were in power are now in opposition with second thoughts.

St Vincent and the Grenadines have taken the lead and I believe Belize have also published its intention to move ahead by year end.

Elsewhere in the region, it is all lip service and grave un-certainty about where we going and how we plan to get there.

Loads of doubt about that change is very prevalent among a very wide cross section of our people.

And the major question remains large and looming among the many doubters on this matter are we ready and prepared to make that drastic change, at this or anytime soon?

And from my own perspective, I cannot help or resist the query, would that change go together with the progress we are currently aiming to achieve?

Only time and coming events will fully answer those questions.

September 25, 2009

St Vincent PM welcomes comments by London's new judicial head

St Vincent PM welcomes comments by London's new judicial head
Source: Caribbean net News
Published: September 25, 2009



KINGSTOWN, St Vincent and the Grenadines -- The Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, has welcomed remarks attributed to Lord Phillips head of the newly-created Supreme Court, which replaces the Judicial Committee.

The Financial Times has quoted Lord Phillips as stating that he is searching for ways to curb “disproportionate” time he and his fellow senior justices spent hearing legal appeals from independent Commonwealth countries.

Gonsalves has latched on to Lord Phillips' comments, to further press his case for persons to vote Yes in a Referendum in St Vincent on November 25 2009, to change its present Constitution.

The parliamentary opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) has already started a campaign asking people to vote No and its former leader and founder, Sir James Mitchell, says he would like to see the Privy Council being retained as St Vincent's final court of appeal.

Gonsalves called a media conference on Wednesday, after reading the Financial Times article, and blasted those who want to vote against the proposed Constitution and keep the Privy Council as the country's final court of appeal.

If the referendum is passed in November, St Vincent and the Grenadines will become a full signatory to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

St Vincent and the Grenadines' current Constitution, which was handed down to the country in 1979 after it gained political independence from Britain, stipulates that the London Privy Council should be the final court of appeal.

This could only be altered by two thirds of the persons voting yes in a Referendum, to change the Constitution.

Gonsalves feels Lord Phillips’ comment is a “notice to quit colonial premises” and he was not willing to overstay his time.

“I shall not loiter on colonial premises for one moment than is necessary.

“We are a free and independent people and our judges are excellent; every single day our judges deliver the oxygen of justice. We have excellent judges on the CCJ and it is an excellent body,” Gonsalves said.

Gonsalves said being part of the CCJ is like one having its own home. “We will not be tenants; we are owners.”

The Financial Times states the Privy Council judicial committee is now used as a London-subsidised top court by about 15 independent nations, most of them small islands in the Caribbean and Pacific.

“Those in St Vincent and the Grenadines who hanker for the continuation of appeals to the Privy Council have now received a proverbial slap in the face,” Gonsalves said

September 23, 2008

Immigration Debate

The immigration debate
Source:Nation News - Barbados
Published on: 9/21/08.

DR RALPH GONSALVES, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, last week responded to certain comments made by Prime Minister David Thompson in respect of Government's policy on the issue of freedom of CARICOM nationals to compete for jobs in Barbados.

Mr Thompson said he had already discussed the matter with the leadership of the Immigration Department as well as other agencies connected with immigration policy and practice "and I have indicated certain loopholes that need to be plugged right away". He also said unemployment in Barbados was much higher than the statistics tell us.

Dr Gonsalves, whose country is fairly high among beneficiaries of freedom of movement under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. described Mr Thompson's declaration as cutting across "both the spirit and letter" of the CARICOM Treaty and warned that the rationale for tackling Barbados' unemployment difficulties could result in serious problems for the CARICOM single market "of which Barbados is currently the major beneficiary".

Taken together, comments on both sides portend grave consequences for regional co-operation, even though several members of the CARICOM sub-sector are on course to shaping a separate alliance.

In respect of immigration policy, priority is now given to university graduates, media workers, sports persons, artistes and musicians, and provision is also made specifically for skilled workers such as reportedly constitute the vast majority of arrivals in Barbados for employment in construction and agriculture.

It has been argued, largely by proponents of a more open policy that our local labour force has not responded to opportunities in those sectors to the extent that they did in earlier times. The point has also been made that while most Barbadians maintain an excellent work ethic with high productivity and punctuality, standards have fallen to worrying levels among a growing number of employees.

Justification

Private sector employers cite those negatives as justification for hiring non-Barbadians. Some of them also argue that engaging migrant labour is less expensive than employing locals who are accustomed to a standard of living that can only be sustained by incrementally higher wages.
Mr Thompson makes the point that where local recruitment falls short, employers should turn to Barbadians living abroad instead of bringing in non-nationals. Barbadians fully support this principle in respect of qualified individuals.

However, the present debate is resolved, we should all make an effort to ensure that Barbados is never regarded as an unfriendly country in which to live, work and do business. Our country continues to encourage high net worth individuals and multinational companies to invest in this country and even to set up head offices here.

In our quest to look after our own, we must also be mindful of all those persons in our midst, who contribute substantially to our way of life. And we must exercise care in how we go about managing our industrial and investment culture and the signals we send to our neighbours and to the world.

Our CARICOM neighbours buy just over 50 per cent of this island's exports, compared with 12 per cent of Trinidad and Tobago's and four per cent of Jamaica's. These facts should not be lost on policymakers, especially now that members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) are seeking closer economic ties and possibly eventual political union with Trinidad and Tobago.

It is reasonable to anticipate that such a development would indeed undermine the CSME which is already being buffeted by some members' approach to immigration policy, lack of commitment to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and conflicting attitudes to international trade relations such as the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU).

Any further weakening of the CSME could do long-term damage to regional cooperation.

September 10, 2008

Future of the CCJ?

Commentary: What is the future of the Caribbean Court of Justice?
By Oscar Ramjeet
Published on Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Source : Caribbean Net News
Print Version

It seems to me that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which was on the back-burner for more than three years is no longer there, since it has been completely removed from the stove and is tucked away in some corner. At least the leaders of Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines are more concerned about OECS unity with the twin island republic, than to initiate steps to remove the Privy Council as the final court.

One wonders why so much time is being spent by Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister, Patrick Manning to jet to Jamaica, Bahamas, Belize and OECS to sensitise the leaders on his wider OECS initiative rather than to move to join the CCJ as the final court and encourage the OECS states to do likewise. Moreover, more attention is being paid on the implications of the European Partnership Agreement (EPA) as to whether or not Caribbean countries should sign.
It was Trinidad and Tobago as well as Jamaica, the two largest Engllish speaking countries in the region, which were in the forefront for the regional court and both countries now seem to have little or no interest.
I recall in 1990, while I was Solicitor General of St VIncent and the Grenadines, the late Selwyn Richardson, who was the Attorney General of the twin island republic, and Bryn Pollard, former Legal Advisor to CARICOM, journeyed to St Vncent and the Grenadines to woo the James Mitchell government to join the court.
Now, after nearly 18 years, only two countries, Barbados and Guyana, enjoy the benefits of the Appellate Division of the CCJ.
Why? Is it that the governments are reluctant to take steps to put the mechanism in place to remove the Privy Council as the final court, be it by way of referenda or two thirds or three-fourths of parliamentary votes as the case may be, or they do not want to confront the electorates?
It seems to me that the governments will have to woo the opposition to support the move, but they are hesitant to do so. It should be noted that there have been changes in the administration of most countries in the region since the idea of setting up of the court was conceived.
Besides David Thompson of Barbados, there are at least four other Prime Ministers who are lawyers, Herbert Ingraham of Bahamas, Ralph Gonsalves of St VIncent and the Grenadnes and the two new leaders, Dean Barrow of Belize and Tillman Thomas of Grenada, and they should work assidiously to rid the Privy Council as the final court. The region does not only need political independence, but it is high time the Caribbean adopt a parochial approach to the development of Caribbean jurisprudence.
Caribbean jurisprudence and its promotion is not just about civil and criminal disputes and matters of public law, but the CCJ also exercises an original jurisdiction since the court is charged with the resolving disputes between Caribbean countries that are parties to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
The Jamaica Labour Party was in government when the idea was mooted for the CCJ and they are back in power after more than a fifteen years and they are not taking taking steps to do so. Mr Manning is now busy switching his attention to greater heights, maybe to be the leader for the wider OECS, and is not pushing for his country to join the CCJ, although the regional court is based in Port of Spain.
The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica-born Justin Simon is advocating a joint referendum of the OECS states to determine if they should adopt the appellate jurisdiction. But this cannot be done since a decision has to be taken by each country. It might be a good idea for Simon to advise his Prime Minister, Baldwin Spencer, who is now the Chairman of Caricom, to try to convince member states to join, and perhaps try to woo the Prime Minister of the country of his birth to do likewise.
In fact, Spencer told an interviewer on Observer Radio's Voice in Antigua that he does not think Antigua and Barbuda is entirely opposed to the Manning initiative. He added, "Our level of functional cooperation in the OECS is very, very high and good. As a matter of fact we have been applauded all over the world for what we have been able to accomplish at that level."
The CCJ was inaugurated in April 2005, more than three years and three months ago, with only two countries joinng, Barbados and Guyana, and there is no indication of any other 10 countries are taking steps to do so.
Besides the experienced and well qualified judges, the CCJ has an excellent support staff and top class facilties where audio files of court proceedings can be obtained hours after.
It is very unfortunate that the remaining 10 countries are not making use of the full facilities of the court, despite calls from several quarters, including the president of the CCJ, for the other countries to join, since the court is being under utililized.
I have written several articles about the CCJ, and even suggested that the authorities consider a lobbyist, perhaps an influential regionalist like Sir Shridath Ramphal, former Commonwealth Secretary General, to woo the governments as well as the opposition parties to accept the CCJ as the final court of appeal in the region.

April 16, 2008

Third Anniversary of the CCJ

The CCJ three years on
RICKEY SINGH, Observer Caribbean correspondent
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

TODAY marks the third anniversary of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) that was ceremonially inaugurated in Trinidad and Tobago with an inter-faith service on April 16, 2005 to usher in a historic moment for the development of a Caribbean jurisprudence.

It was established to function both as a final appellate institution and with an original jurisdiction for resolution of trade disputes arising from interpretation of the revised Caricom Treaty.

Three years after its inauguration with headquarters in Port of Spain, the CCJ remains the final appeal court of just its first two member states - Guyana and Barbados. It has delivered judgments in a dozen cases between October 2005 and March 2008.

All other partner states of the English-speaking Caribbean, including its home base, Trinidad and Tobago, continue to access the Privy Council in London, consistent with an age-old colonial tradition and with no movement on the political horizon for a change in its membership status quo in the immediate future.

The Barbados-based Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) has, to its list of credits, the successful mobilisation of US$100 million on the international money market for the financing of the CCJ with a carefully crafted repayment scheme by governments of the participating member states.
While all member countries pay their contributions for the operational budget of the CCJ - estimated at approximately US$4.05 million in 2006 - only Barbados and Guyana can rightly access it as their court of last resort, plus its jurisdiction on trade disputes.

The explanation often offered by Caricom governments yet to sever links with the Privy Council is that they may first have to go the route of a national referendum. But constitutional experts have pointed out that while in Jamaica both dominant political parties have, as of last year, now committed themselves to the referendum course to determine replacement of the Privy Council with the CCJ, at least four Eastern Caribbean countries do not necessarily have to do so.

These four, all in the OECS sub-region - St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica - have the option to negotiate support for a two-thirds parliamentary majority to access the CCJ as their final appellate court, rather than resorting to a two-track approach to obtain both the required parliamentary majority and going for a national referendum.

None of this quartet of countries has attempted, under different administrations, to educate the public in favour of replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ. Instead, there continues to be the curious scenario of opposition parties often on the offensive to retain the Privy Council, particularly when they disagree with judgements of their own courts.

Focus on Jamaica
On the other hand, governing parties justify the existence of the CCJ, but without pursuing any significant initiative to move the process towards terminating access to the Privy Council and allowing unchallenged claims of their domestic political opponents.

Latest criticisms levelled at the CCJ in Trinidad and Tobago - where passionate debates often take place about the independence and integrity of the local judiciary - came last week from United National Congress parliamentarian, Senator Wade Mark.

Not only did he engage in a verbal assault against the Patrick Manning administration for, as he claimed, being part of the regional governments "wasting" some TT$400 million (US$66.4 million) annually on the CCJ, but thought it necessary to introduce the race factor with his questioning of any West Indian of Indian descent being among the appointed judges.

In plural Caricom societies like Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, the race factor in high-profile appointments, including the judiciary, has long been a sensitive issue.It is troubling that Senator Mark should raise, at this stage, the race factor when seven distinguished legal luminaries comprise the judges of the court (two more are yet to be appointed), when making his criticisms against poor fiscal management by the Manning administration.

Incidentally, the senator is way off mark in speaking of wastage of $400 million when the total recurrent and capital budget for the CCJ in 2006, as audited, was US$7.2 million (including US$2.7 million in capital expenditure).

At present, ironically, and strange as it may seem to some, hope is being encouraged on Jamaica moving towards the promised referendum on the CCJ as its court of last resort.

The feeling is that once it takes place, the outcome will be positive in favour of terminating access to the Privy Council. Such a development could well inspire other Caricom states to cease being negative about the CCJ and broaden access.