Parts of the media and many distinguished individuals have joined with the hoi polloi of the uninformed in a call to remove The Queen as Monarch of Jamaica and replace her with a republican form of government. But why condemn the minister?

“Prime Minister Andrew Holness needs to clarify if his Government is really committed to ditching the monarchy and establishing Jamaica as a republic, and if it is, when. For either his legal and constitutional affairs minister, Marlene Malahoo Forte, was being deliberately obfuscatory when she spoke on the matter in Parliament last week, or she has the issues jumbled in her mind.” (The Sunday Gleaner, June 12, Editorial, ‘Don’t delay ditching The Queen’)

Later: “So when Ms Malahoo Forte spoke in Parliament’s sectoral debate last week… it was expected that she would outline a clear, consensus-trodden path to republic status. In-between a pretentiously meandering dissertation on Jamaica’s constitutional history, she did something of sorts. At least, a timetable for a referendum on the monarchy… appears to have been established.”

Later: “In the meantime, the Government should go ahead with those issues on which there is already consensus, the principal one being bringing to an end the outsourcing [of our symbols of sovereignty and national aspirations]…”

Here the article urges the Government to go ahead with ending outsourcing the symbols of sovereignty, which clearly can only mean replacing The Queen as the Monarch of Jamaica, a deeply entrenched provision in the constitution. This is what Minister Forte was pursuing in the manner set out in the constitution.

Parenthetically, the minister is Mrs Forte not Ms Forte as recorded in the article five times.

The people of Jamaica would expect some guidance from a prestigious national newspaper on what are the advantages in replacing The Queen as head of state for a better life, and what are the disadvantages retaining The Queen, instead of the open rebuke of the minister for what it sees as delay in ditching The Queen.

Significantly, however, the editorial completely ignores an earlier unanimous bipartisan decision (more than a consensus) in the House of Representatives seven years ago, on January 27, 2015, mandating Government to seek reparation from Britain for engaging in the practice of slavery in Jamaica.

The Government has taken the responsibility to carry out this decision by way of a petition to The Queen under second Section 4 of the Privy Council Act. The section states that, where any complaint is made to the monarch that cannot go through the courts, the monarch will refer the complaint to the Privy Council for advice. This is where the UK Government should be called on to account for the damages and evil consequences resulting from chattel slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule. The UK Government accepts the advice of the Privy Council on such constitutional matters that cannot go through the courts. (See Crossman, HC Deb 06 March 1967 vol 742 cc1038-91038)

A petition to The Queen on behalf of the people of Jamaica for a referral of their claim for reparation for slavery is alive in the House, as Minister Grange updates the House and the country on the status of the petition from time to time.

Action to remove The Queen runs counter to the petition undertaken by the Government pursuant to the 2015 decision. The Queen provides access to the Privy Council, removing her amounts to an obstruction to the Government carrying out the will of Parliament as directed in the 2015 decision.

More important, however, is a caveat against action for the removal ofTthe Queen when going ahead with the situation would be obstructing, if not reversing, the 2015 decision of the people’s representatives in Parliament, a clear contempt of Parliament.

But there is more to it than that when the call to go ahead with action for the removal of The Queen takes the matter to another level, where the call incites others to obstruct the business of Parliament.

Going republic

It is important to remember that The Gleaner was established in 1834, the same year for the abolition of slavery in Jamaica and would know the unrelenting struggle by the people from Africa against enslavement and their daily suffering and deprivation — relegated as black in political purgatory for more than another 100 years to independence.

During that period The Gleaner grew, prospered, and is still expanding with The Queen as Monarch and head of state for Jamaica, while the people from Africa, like motherless children, attempt starting life anew at a severe handicap.

The overwhelming majority of Jamaicans today are descendants of the people from Africa, who for succeeding generations have been denied equal opportunities for development and prosperity under colonial rule. The imbalance was aggravated at emancipation by paying compensation for slavery to the wrong people — the enslavers and not the enslaved. This is what a petition to The Queen can correct in the demand for reparation — to adjust the imbalance in the society that is causing uncontrollable social turbulence.

Jamaica’s petition for reparation is presented under Section 4 of the Privy Council Act for the damage done to the people in slavery under British colonial rule. It could not be by chance that the Privy Council Act was passed the same year, within two weeks of each other, for the Emancipation of Slaves Act. Bearing in mind how the wealth and enrichment of Britain were acquired largely from the toil and tears, blood and sweat of the enslaved people in Jamaica.

The UK Government’s responsibility for whatever happens in Jamaica under colonial rule has high constitutional implications. Constitutionally, reparation under section 4 are due where the petition is based on the practice of fundamental human rights and fairness as the common law of humanity.

The claim for reparation will rely on Royal Shakespeare Company HC Deb 06 March 1967 vol 742 cc1038-91038.

Political activity to remove The Queen without proper planning for ensuring equal opportunity to the people for the pursuit of happiness puts the call to remove her in the wrong order of priorities for fundamental rights and justice in independence.

There will come a time for the people of Jamaica to decide on removal of The Queen as their monarch, but this is not the time. Jamaicans should be using the existing system before losing it to an alternative that has no record of similar protection of human rights and, more importantly, no provision for reparation for past injuries.

Jamaica’s petition to The Queen is a call for a share in the wealth extorted from their ancestors in enslavement on the plantations for the exclusive enrichment of Britain. This is a justifiable demand for compensation that will go a long way to towards correcting the inequalities in the society, and to advance the general development of the country. This is what Jamaicans lose when they “ditch the Queen”.

After all is said and done, the petition by the people of Jamaica trusts the UK Government to practise at home what it demands from the rest of the world abroad. The petition by the people of Jamaica shonours the memory of their ancestors for their struggle and their sacrifice through slavery and purgatory to take them this far in the gruelling and hostile relay for freedom, trusting that no one will drop the baton before completing the journey. As Nelson Mandela found out, it always seems impossible until it’s done.

Frank Phipps, QC, is a member of Jamaica’s National Council for Reparation. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or frank.phipps@ yahoo.com.