— a halfway approach vs full access
WHILE the two opposition parties (APNU and AFC) were engaged in a fierce slash and burn political exercise last week against the government’s 2012 budget–which was eventually approved last Thursday, Trinidad and Tobago was surprisingly announcing its decision to access the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Appeal (CCJ) but only for criminal matters. I plan to return to the first-time ever budget defeat by a post-independence government in Guyana in this column next Sunday, but for now I share with readers developments relating to the CCJ and the significant difference between Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, both of which will be celebrating their 50th anniversary of political independence from Britain within weeks of each other this coming August.
The Jamaica Government of Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller remains “firmly committed” to scuttling relations with the Privy Council in London in favour of the country’s accessing the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice as its final appellate institution for both criminal and civil matters.
In making this quite clear in a telephone interview on Friday with this columnist, Jamaica’s Attorney General, Patrick Atkinson, steered away from conflicting views in Trinidad and Tobago over last Wednesday’s announcement by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to access the CCJ for criminal cases.
Atkinson said that at this stage, he prefers to view the decision by the Trinidad and Tobago government as “an encouraging forward step” and would await “further developments”.
However, so far as the government of Jamaica is concerned, its determination is not only to break the syndrome of dependence on the Privy Council as the country’s final appeal court in favour of the CCJ, but to also work towards ending the current monarchical system of government for a constitutional republic with a Jamaican as President.
The Attorney General said he was optimistic, based on “some positive signals” from the parliamentary opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), that the Simpson-Miller-led PNP administration would succeed in terminating the link with the Privy Council in favour of the CCJ as well as ending the monarchical form of governance inherited at independence on August 6, 1962.
The key political difference is that while the government of Trinidad and Tobago has opted to go half way in accessing the CCJ, Jamaica is aiming for a complete break with the Privy Council in preference for the appellate jurisdiction of the regional court, that’s headquartered in Port-of-Spain.
Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were the first two countries to gain their political freedom from Britain back in August 1962 (the latter on August 31) and were among the founding members of the Caribbean Community that will be 39 years in existence this July.
Relatedly, both also need two third majorities in their houses of parliament to delink themselves from the jurisdictions of the Privy Council as well as moving to a constitutional republic. Trinidad and Tobago has done the latter with a non-executive President as Head of State.

UNC/PNP positions
So far as accessing the regional court is concerned, the distinguishing political difference between the current governments in Kingston and Port-of-Spain is that the PNP has always been forthcoming, as a government, to replace the Privy Council in favour of the CCJ.
On the other hand, the main opposition United National Congress (UNC), which dominates the current People’s Partnership Government (PPG) in Port-of-Spain, has been vacillating on accessing the CCJ, although as the ruling party of an earlier government, headed by then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, it was quite supportive of the court’s  establishment with operational headquarters in Port-of-Spain.
It is also pertinent to observe here that neither did the People’s National Movement (PNM) with a two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament under then Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s leadership, nor ANY of the significant politicians currently decrying the puzzling half-way measure by the PPG to limit the CCJ’s jurisdiction to criminal matters, had shown interest in advocating breaking ties with the Privy Council in favour of the regional court.
Now two former Attorney Generals of PNM and UNC-led governments, John Jeremy and Ramesh Maharaj, respectively, have gone public not only in criticising the government’s decision to limit access to the CCJ on criminal matters, while retaining the Privy Council for civil cases. But, they have gone further in questioning the “legality” of such a course.
In the view of some other leading members of the legal profession, in and out of Trinidad and Tobago, the decision by the PPG could well be viewed as a cynical and contemptuous approach by the government to maintain a “colonial relationship” with the Privy Council while proudly speaking about celebrating the country’s half century of political independence on August 31.

Ramphal’s caution
Simply stated, the announcement by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar to access the CCJ as a final appeal court for criminal matters, suggests a desire to enjoy the best of two worlds—maintaining ties with the Privy Council while, finally accessing the CCJ, seven years after its inauguration–for just criminal matters.
This, basically, means the handling of  the numerous death penalty cases for murder that are forwarded on appeals to the  Privy Council where the overwhelming decisions of Law Lords normally go in favour of the accused—much to the dismay of the local “hang-them-quickly” advocates fed up with the spiraling murder rates.
Since the CCJ was inaugurated in 2005, the region’s people have been sensitized to the scope of its responsibilities that encompass an original and appellate jurisdiction as a major pillar of the regional integration movement in the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which anchors the Caribbean Community.
Sir Shridath Ramphal, one of the region’s foremost legal luminaries, told me that he “shares the doubts as to the legality of a partial appellate jurisdiction for the CCJ…My hope is that Trinidad and Tobago will go all the way in accessing the regional court consistent with the CARICOM Heads of Government Agreement for its establishment.”
Sir Shridath was head of the West Indian Commission that had among its core recommendations, the creation of a West Indian Court of Appeal. That idea was to subsequently blossom into the CCJ.
Guyana and Barbados were the first two CARICOM states to sever ties with the Privy Council in favour of accepting the final appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ. They were followed just last year by Belize and Dominica recently disclosed its plan to enact legislation to break with the Privy Council and join the CCJ.