ELITIST SECRECY

This issue of Caribbean unity was the focus of former Jamaican Prime Minister PJ Patterson, who was the feature speaker last Friday at the 20th Dr Eric Williams Memorial Lecture which was held at the Central Bank. Mr Patterson raised the issues of the Caribbean Court of Appeal (CCJ), arguing that a fully functional Caribbean court was crucial for regional integration. “Is there still doubt that we have persons of character, learning, and ability in the Caribbean to be judges of a court of final adjudication in our own legal affairs?” asked Mr Patterson.

The answer is No and Yes. “No,” in the sense that no one could reasonably argue about the technical competence of our jurists; but “Yes,” in the sense that there is no guarantee that these persons are the ones who would be elevated to the CCJ. This is because competence can be judged by objective criteria, such as the quality of judgments delivered by judges over their career as well as their conduct during that tenure. But becoming a CCJ judge is a political process, even if politicians aren’t directly involved. This is because the persons appointed may not be chosen on the basis of professional excellence only, but on their ability to network.

While that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, it does raise the possibility that judges’ decisions may be influenced by narrow political or populist criteria rather than legal or strictly ethical principles. This possibility is shown by the overriding rationale offered by several Prime Ministers for the need of a CCJ — not regional unity or self-determination, but the desire to execute convicted criminals. Additionally, judges in the Caribbean countries exist above and beyond the scan of ordinary citizens. We in Trinidad and Tobago are now experiencing the fallout of having justice as a cloistered virtue, with the dispute between our Chief Justice and the executive having taken place behind closed doors and the Law Association insisting that this is the way it must be.

But, if the Caribbean countries are to put final legal appeals into the hands of a regional body, this culture of elitist secrecy must first be abandoned. In small societies — and, even if integration becomes a reality, the region will be no bigger than a small metropolitan city — the pool of competent persons is too limited for bias and favouritism to be dismissed as probable deficiencies. So ensuring the highest professional standards means that transparency must be part and parcel of the CCJ. After all, it is a basic principle of politics that transparency is the key to preventing the abuse of power.

Given all these considerations, it is therefore not a given that the Caribbean countries are indeed ready for a fully functioning CCJ. All the arguments made to the contrary are rooted in ideology and hope. But, if the people of the Caribbean are to hand over final legal authority to a regional institution, then the democratic process has to be deepened first — and we are sure that even Mr Patterson would not doubt that Caribbean leaders have not done enough in that regard.