CCJ OR PRIVY COUNCIL?

Regardless of the “Constitution Reform or else” argument advanced by the Opposition United National Congress, any attempt by the UNC to block the setting up of the Caribbean Court of Justice to replace the Privy Council as this country’s final Court of Appeal will come over as a clinging on to the last remaining direct link in the Constitution with our colonial past. This does not mean that the People’s National Movement Government should continue to duck the issue of Constitution Reform. Nonetheless what strikes as odd is that even as the Opposition speaks of reform it has not yet provided the country with its proposals for changes to the Constitution it sees as necessary.

On Monday, the Caribbean Court of Justice Bill 2004 and an accompanying Constitution (Amendment) (Number 2) Bill will be before the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, although the CCJ Bill 2004 requires a simple majority, which the Government side enjoys, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, because it seeks to effect a change to the country’s 1976 Republican Constitution, demands a three-fourths majority in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. This country, then, can only lay claim to effecting a changeover, constitutionally, from the Privy Council as its final Court of Appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice if and when the Constitution (Amendment) Bill is approved by both Houses of Parliament.

A crucial ingredient of an established Caribbean Court of Justice, apart from its replacing in Trinidad and Tobago of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will lie in its being empowered “to interpret and apply the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas including the Caribbean Single Market and Economy.” Under Section 109 of the Constitution decisions of the Court of Appeal in carefully spelt out cases can be appealed, as of right, to the Judicial Committee. What is important here, however, is not the question of the type of cases, the decisions in which can be appealed to the Judicial Committee, but the existence of the constitutional provision itself.

When the Opposition insists or even implies that it will not support the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice until there is Constitution Reform, it is behaving as a child who refuses to accept that he/she having attained the age of majority now has certain responsibilities. Few would argue, however, that the United National Congress’ plea for Constitution Reform is unreasonable. What is unreasonable, though, is the dubious strategy adopted of withtholding support for critical pieces of legislation unless either there is Constitution Reform or the Administration makes a serious move in that direction.

Meanwhile, the Government’s bringing before Parliament on Monday of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2004 to amend Section 109 of the Constitution is a tacit recognition of a need for Constitution Reform. It should follow this up with concrete proposals for Constitution Reform, after having studied areas it may consider as needing to be amended. Later it should invite proposals from the Opposition and other political parties as well as from NGOs even as it leaves the door open to proposals from individuals. This done, it should put out the package of proposals for public comment and later, with the comments in, set up committees to begin the process of evaluating both the proposals and the critical responses to them. But something must be done. This includes neither game playing or the sad childlike clinging on to the shirt tail of Trinidad and Tobago’s colonial past.