Ex-AG: Too late to turn back now

QUESTIONS are to be asked as to why the Opposition UNC signed the agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) when they were in Government, since they are now refusing to support legislation to make the court legal. So said former Attorney General under a PNM administration, Keith Sobion, yesterday when he addressed a public consultation on the CCJ at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Port-of-Spain. His co-presenter at the consultation, Duke Pollard, Caricom’s director of legal drafting, warned that it was not easy to “opt out of the CCJ” unless countries also relinquished support for the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME).

Sobion, in response to a question from a participant, said not only was the Opposition UNC here in TT refusing to support the court, but also in Jamaica, that country’s opposition was also promising to repeal the Act enacting the court, if it should return to power. He said questions had to be asked about the UNC’s position, since they can’t say “they have signed an agreement and because they are in opposition, it is bad. Why sign it?” He asked. He noted that the Jamaican opposition may also have great difficultly in repealing the Act if it returns to power. Sobion said bearing in mind that the constitution in countries of the region were different, the matter was a “people issue and it was a question of how we address our problems.” He said if we are to move forward as a people and region economically, we could not depend on politicians but how we perceived ourselves.

Sobion also assured that taking matters before the CCJ, as a final appellant court, would not be costly compared to the Privy Council. He said the court would move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. He said in 2002 only 35 matters from the region were taken to the Privy Council, a statistic which showed that the court was extremely prohibitive to many. He also questioned how the Privy Council could interpret our court matters when they were not familiar with our culture. Pollard also assured that the court was not a hanging court and its judges would not be political appointees. He said “ole talk” about the court being a hanging court were being made by lawyers who claimed to know the law, but it was a misconception. He insisted that the court would be one of a kind, in that its finances would also not be controlled by regional governments. Regarding the quality of judgments the court would give, Pollard said those who believed in such an idea would have to look at themselves, since attorneys usually guide the courts in their submissions on the type of judgments given.