Dear Editor,

I write this letter in response to your editorial published Thursday, October 5, 2023, headlined ‘The PNP must know that one can have a republic without the CCJ’.

In that publication, the editor opined that “not only is Mr Golding being sentimental — he is playing tit for tat”, then goes on to reassert an opposition to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on the basis that, “Until we have a justice system in which our people can have faith and not feel that they have to take justice in their own hands, we are not ready to dispense with a credible institution such as the Privy Council.”

In my view, that argument is emblematic of a sentimentalism that rejects an acknowledgement that the Privy Council sits within the very ecosystem that comprises the justice system in which our people do not presently have faith, if indeed the evidence of not having faith is the habitual taking “justice in their own hands”. Such a view robs us of an opportunity to determine why, notwithstanding the retention of the Privy Council despite attaining political independence, our countrymen have lost faith in the justice system as it now is.

In our discourse on this matter, if we are all to avoid sentimentalism or tit for tat, then we must supply evidence in support of our respective positions.

For instance, in that same piece the editor posited a concern that “major investors” may not have confidence in an investment destination that has the Caribbean Court of Justice as its final appellate court — a situation that has not deterred “major investors” from taking their business to a newly buoyant Guyana. And it has not prevented investments in Barbados — a nation against which Jamaica’s economic growth is often compared and determined to be anaemic. The evidence globally is that investors follow opportunities in an economy that is stable, attractive and, all things being equal, will give them returns on their investments.

It is the very trust in regional judges asserted by the editor that should be the credible basis on which to examine the achievements of the CCJ since its inception. It has proven to be robust and viable despite the fact that only four Caricom countries have “signed onto its final court”. Its decisions have been lauded and the model on which it operates has been celebrated by other similar courts across the globe.

There has never been an allegation that would suggest that the CCJ has been anything but independent and impartial. Its capacity and credibility confirmed, perhaps the editor could consider a dispassionate review of efficacy of the CCJ to be Jamaica’s final court, republic or not. A useful tool of reference would be an analysis of the nature of cases still pending review by the Privy Council and whether or not said cases would have already been settled had they gone to a CCJ for final adjudication.

Is there an opportunity cost to businesses in Jamaica because of the huge perceived delay involved in awaiting settlements from the Privy Council? Do we know if said delays and the cumbersomeness of the process to have matters heard and dispensed with by the Privy Council has been a deterrent to “major investors” bringing investments to Jamaica?

I look forward to subsequent reviews by your paper of its views on the CCJ or perhaps even an adjustment of its assumption as to Mark Golding’s motives on the subject.

Raymond Pryce

Former Member of Parliament