'Patwa' rights and wrongs

Carolyn Cooper, Gleaner Writer

Believe it or not, the Jamaican Constitution covertly acknowledges the fact that 'Patwa' is, indeed, a national language. Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees 'Patwa' speakers basic rights in the legal system. But don't take my word for it. See for yourself the relevant sections:

Chapter III of the Jamaican Constitution (2011), Section 14 (2):

(2) Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right:

(b) at the time of his arrest or detention or as soon as is reasonably practicable, to be informed, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention;

(c) where he is charged with an offence, to be informed forthwith, in a language which he understands, of the nature of the charge;

Section 16 (6):

(6) Every person charged with a criminal offence shall:

(a) be informed, as soon as is reasonably practicable, in a language which he understands, of the nature of the offence charged;

(e) have the assistance of an interpreter, free of cost, if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

The Constitution doesn't explicitly state the fact that the language of the court is English. Nor does it openly admit that the first language of the vast majority of Jamaicans is not English, but Jamaican. To concede this gross disparity would be an admission of the fundamental inequity of the justice system. So, instead, we have compromised justice.

If you are arrested, and/or charged with a criminal offence and end up in court, you are entitled to an interpreter who is supposed to ensure that you understand what's going on. Of course, no self-respecting police officer arrests anybody in English, so there's usually no need for this service on the spot.

Contemptuous court system

But there's a fundamental flaw in the Constitution. There are no 'fair trial' and 'due process' provisions in civil cases for citizens who speak only Jamaican. One morning, as I waited in a Resident Magistrate's Court for my case to be heard, I listened in amazement as the judge explained in quite sophisticated English how she was proposing to handle a dispute about unpaid rent in another case.

The defendant was told that the case was going to be sent to a mediator who would discuss exactly how much rent she would have to pay. The distressed defendant kept on insisting in Jamaican that she didn't owe as much rent as the landlord claimed. The judge continued speaking in English, simply repeating her proposal. This back-and-forth went on for a good few minutes.

At the risk of being deemed in contempt of court, I jumped up and asked the judge if she would allow me to act as interpreter for the defendant. She agreed. As soon as the woman understood the proposal, she accepted it. What angered me was the smug question the judge then asked: "Is that what I should have said?" To which I disdainfully replied, "Yes, Your Honour."

Surely, the judge should know that justice cannot be dispensed in a language that the defendant does not understand! What bothered me was the haughtiness of Her Honour. She must have realised that the defendant did not understand her. But it did not occur to her that she needed to use 'that' language - Jamaican.

The same day, this 'hard-ears' judge refused to apply the lesson she ought to have learnt and failed to communicate with another defendant. In this instance, the plaintiff did not appear in court, and so the case was dismissed. But the poor defendant, who did not understand that he was free to go, sat in court for a whole other hour waiting for the case to be tried.

I was so vexed I again jumped up and asked the judge why she would not make it clear to the man that he was free to go. Her response was alarming: She had told the man he could go, and if he wanted to sit there, it was his business! It clearly didn't matter to her that the man did not understand. That was his problem, not hers. I took it upon myself to tell the man that he'd got off. And he quickly left the court.

Natural injustice

Now, this is a judge who considered it appropriate to dress me down another day because, in her opinion, I was indecently dressed for court. I thought I was dressed to kill in a 'kris' white linen pants suit. Her Honour arbitrarily declared that my pants were not acceptable in her court. They were mid-calf. Incidentally, there were women in skirts shorter than the length of my pants!

I excused myself and went into the corridor. I unbuttoned the pants and got them to drop a good few inches. Fortunately, the shirt was long enough to cover my unmentionables. I then hobbled back into court like those young men with their pants waist almost at their knees. Of course, I had to hobble very carefully, because if the pants fell to the floor, I would definitely be in contempt of court.

The judge insisted that the extra inches made absolutely no difference. She pointed to one of the men and said that his pants length was the standard: pants, male or female, had to go right down to the floor. In complete frustration, I turned to leave the court when the police officer on duty said to me, "Just tell her seh yu sorry!" I did, with much insincerity.

I couldn't believe it! A few inches of cloth was a much bigger issue than making sure that the language of the courts is understood by all citizens. This is natural injustice, plain and simple.

Carolyn Cooper is an ideator. Visit her bilingual blog at http://carolynjoycooper.wordpress.com/ . Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and karokupa@gmail.com.