A.J. Nicholson | Banish the visa-for-justice regime – it diminishes us

Hansard has recorded that the Opposition has thrown down the gauntlet, protesting that it cannot be in the people’s interest for them to be pressed to ditch the monarchy without more, leaving themselves clinging to the inaccessible court of the monarch whom they would have abandoned as their head of state.

The thoroughly convincing argument recites that such a proposal coming from their Government is a gross insult to Jamaicans, pressured to forfeit their dignity and self-respect by fastening themselves in place as the only people on Earth saddled with the visa-for-justice obligation.

Those who support the proposal, lazily or uncaring, refuse even to consider what the people are being urged to do – to themselves. Some are against the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), regardless.

Fundamental freedoms allow some lawyers, for example, to support and extol ‘the virtues’ of such a proposal. It may, self-serving though quite legitimately, perhaps form the basis for arm-twisting of the authorities by wealthy entrepreneurs.

But it is not a proposal that can, by any reasoning whatsoever, be thoughtfully presented to the people by the government, their employees.

And an opposition Party would never be forgiven for sanctioning the affront, particularly, with an accessible internationally-accepted court available, established in no small measure with the assistance of Jamaican tax dollars.

‘Story had to come to bump’! The Opposition has memorably thrown down the gauntlet on behalf of Jamaica’s vast majority, generations of whom have lived way outside of the zone of the wealthy.

This day unfortunately arrived, even with the strong warning imparted in the 2011 Charter of Rights debate in the House of Representatives, bringing to closure the first phase of the reform process.

Arranging the legislative frame for the Charter, and preparatory work for the creation of the Caribbean Court of Justice had been pursued in tandem and it was anticipated that the new and improved rights would come to be adjudicated by judges who are attuned to our cultural norms and dynamics.

FINDING CONSENSUS

Both leaders addressed the imperative of finding consensus, working together for success to attend the journey toward full independence.

Then Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller emphasised: “...I am pleased to declare that this Opposition is ... putting principle and the interest of the people above party politics.

“...(e)ven though we would like to combine the passage of the Charter of Rights and the Caribbean Court of Justice as our final Court of Appeal, we are not going to make the best the enemy of the good”.

As Opposition Leader Mark Golding advised the first meeting of the Joint Select Committee considering the recently tabled ‘Republic bill’, Prime Minister Bruce Golding, after pointing to some thorns that beset the political referendum pathway, communicated the cardinal rule for reaping success in the reform initiative:

“What the framers of the Constitution were saying is that look, there are some things that are so important that it is not just a matter of counting up the votes to decide who has won, it is a matter of ensuring that both Government and Opposition can find common ground”.

His successor, employing an awkward pattern, has gone decidedly against that studied pronouncement.

The only words coming from Andrew Holness on the issue of access to final justice has been that transitioning to the CCJ should be included among questions put in a “grand referendum”.

He followed his mentor, Edward Seaga, who pushed for the courts to declare the proper constitutional route that should be taken, then insisted that the Opposition and the public ignore the ruling of a two-thirds majority vote in each House that was received from the Privy Council, putting the boot to the ruling of the highest court of law.

UNFORGIVABLE DEED

An unforgivable deed, discovered later in 2015 came mere months after Prime Minister Golding’s admonition, by committing an unimaginable breach of the Constitution.

He conspired with others to meddle with the rules that govern membership of the Senate in order to block a move intended to deliver to our less fortunate citizens the long-denied privilege of unhindered access to their final court.

Not content with having recklessly supported the exposure of the judicial structure to the vagaries of a political referendum, and having committed that breach of the Constitution to keep the privilege of access available only to the wealthy, a bill is now tabled in the Parliament, seeking the accomplishment of that very aim.

He is thereby pressing the members of the Legislature and the people to belittle themselves by amendment of the Constitution and by voting in a Referendum, totally against their own interest.

Yet, the record shows that across the entire Commonwealth there are only two countries that have abandoned the monarchy while still subscribing to the monarch’s Court, and even so, their people face no visa-for-justice obligation.

Success, then, in the pursuit of full independence, is not based, as they say, on any rocket science.

Faithfully following the path well-trodden across the Commonwealth, including within the Caribbean region, coupled with the consensual approach exemplified in the passage of the Charter of Rights bill amending the Constitution, the decolonisation initiative would have been realized long since Bruce Golding’s admonition.

Now, Andrew Holness has some inescapable questions to answer, rightfully posed by the Opposition.

Let’s see whether he cares enough to have the visa-for-justice regime banished post-haste.

It diminishes us!

A.J. Nicholson is former minister of justice and attorney general of Jamaica. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com