David Salmon | What Maroon sovereignty?

The recent stand-off between the Accompong Maroons and the police has once again brought up the issue of sovereignty for this community. Captain Richard Currie has consistently asserted that his community is a separate state from Jamaica. Although, this issue is far more nuanced than what is commonly believed.

While there is a strong argument that the Maroons have a claim to the land they currently occupy, several unanswered questions remain, including: how much land is this community entitled to, what are the boundaries for this territory, what does sovereignty mean, and how much autonomy does the Maroons have?

First, it is important to establish the basis for the claims made by the Maroons and the source of contention. These claims can be traced to the 1738 treaty signed between Maroon leader Cudjoe and the colonial administrators of Jamaica.

Rights to Communal Land

The treaty outlines that, “Captain Cudjoe, the rest of his captains, adherents, and men shall for ever hereafter in a perfect state of freedom and liberty… shall enjoy and possess, for themselves and posterity for ever, all the lands situate and lying between Trelawny Town and the Cockpits.”

These clauses support the Maroons often-cited claim that they are entitled to land within the Cockpit Country. International law supports this arrangement with both the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights asserting that both the Mayas in Belize and the Saramaka Maroons in Suriname, respectively, have a communal right to the land they occupy as long as they can produce evidence that show their connection to these lands.

To quote constitutional and human rights attorney Tracy Robinson, “Maroons have been treated in international law often similar to indigenous peoples ... They certainly have special rights to land.” This is generally recognised within Jamaica.

However, the issue of demarcating land for the community has never been fully solved. The Maroon treaty outlines 1,500 acres while some Maroons suggest they are responsible for all of the Cockpit Country. Yet, subsequent legislation passed by the colonial assembly outlines that the Maroons are to survey their own lands to determine what individual Maroons own in actuality.

Source of Contention

The main source of contention lies with the value of the treaty placed by Maroons versus the view of successive administrations. These divergent viewpoints have been fuelled by deliberate and consistent manipulation of both sides to gain political advantage over the other. This has resulted in the current incompatible perspectives that have been manifested.

For Maroons, they see this treaty as a sort of ‘sacred charter’ that cannot be abridged, amended or broken. While for the British and current government, this treaty represents a legal document that can be, and has been, amended by subsequent legislation.

In fact, when interviewing constitutional attorney Dr Lloyd Barnett for this column, he stated, “All of these provisions of the agreement were guided by acts passed in the House of Assembly which was the existing legislative body at the time. Between 1739 and 1856, there were at least nine different statutes modifying or confirming various aspects of the agreement which shows that this is an internal arrangement, not an international agreement.”

Hence, this treaty cannot be interpreted as an international agreement as seen today. In fact, Barbara Klamon Kopytoff in her 1979 publication, ‘Colonial Treaty as Sacred Charter of the Jamaican Maroons’, was explicit when she stated, “There is no question but that what the government intended to propose in making the treaties … They did not intend the Maroons to be a sovereign nation unto themselves, a status that has sometimes been claimed for and by them.”

If this was the case, why would local legislation exists that governs the agreement set out within the treaty. The argument that the Maroons are an independent state and can disobey the laws of Jamaica simply has no substance.

In fact, the Jamaican courts have dealt with this, in the infamous Man O. Rowe case, where the Maroon, Man O. Rowe, was arrested for ganja possession in Accompong. He argued that he could not be charged, as the Maroon treaty exempted him from being prosecuted under local courts. This argument was rejected.

The suggestion can be made that this ruling was made by a racist, colonial institution, but if this is the case, why should the government be obligated to respect the treaty signed by the Maroons with said body? Why did the Maroons follow the laws made by the colonial assembly in the 19th century? You cannot have your cake and eat it. Likewise, the Maroons cannot claim ‘sovereignty’ on one hand and then benefit from local investments funded by Jamaican taxpayers.

Maroons, such as Captain Currie, have benefited from state resources. Currie was educated at Munro College, a public school, received a first degree at the government-funded University of Technology, and a master’s from the Mona School of Business.

Jamaican taxpayers have supported this community. Hence, it is ironic that after benefiting from the investments made by the nation, the argument is now that the State has no right to influence policies that govern the community.

This position is incompatible, counterproductive and potentially short-changes the potential benefits that both the Maroons and the Government can receive. Therefore, it is within this context that legislation should be enacted that guide the interactions between the Maroons and the Government. Like with several other cases locally, domestic legislation has simply failed to catch up with the current reality.

Dominican Example

Nevertheless, within the Caribbean, there exists an ideal arrangement between indigenous people and the government. Dominica is a prime example of what can exist when there is collaboration. My colleague, Chief Lorenzo Sanford, revealed that the Kalinagos possess secure, clearly demarcated communal land that currently stands at 3,786.6 acres. Additionally, the authority of the Chief and governing council is enshrined in 1978 Carib Reserve Act.

The Kalinagos also benefit from all social services, including education, healthcare, housing and infrastructure. The government even negotiates with the council for access to water resources, and no development is permitted outside of what is approved by the body. Additionally, the government can intervene if necessary to protect the well-being of citizens, including children. Thus, Dominica represents an ideal model if Jamaica is truly interested in settling the question of Maroon sovereignty.

David Salmon is a public policy and management student at The University of the West Indies and a commissioner of the Early Childhood Commission. Send feedback to davidsalmon@live.com or Twitter @DavidSalmonJA.