Law lecturer says CCJ not gaining support

Law lecturer at the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill Dr Ronnie Yearwood has suggested that the dispute over membership of the apex appellate regional tribunal is failing to achieve consensus.

Dr Yearwood, a law lecturer at the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill made the observation during the recent presentation of a paper at the second Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) symposium entitled Advancing the Case for Regionalism and Indigenous Jurisprudence, to commemorate 20 years of the CCJ’s establishment.

At the event held at the St Augustine Campus of the UWI in Trinidad, he anchored his presentation on the topic: Whose Stories? The Colonial Constitutionalism and the Caribbean Court of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago.

The former president of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) declared that those who brand opponents of the court as backward and lacking patriotism, will not help advance the CCJ.

“We have to accept that it is the people’s will, and the people’s will as part of our democracy to reject the Caribbean Court of Justice for varying reasons. And I think we have to start with that premise, otherwise this debate as to whether Trinidad, Jamaica, or any other country should join the Caribbean Court of Justice, will not advance,” he argued.

Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, and Saint Lucia are members of the appellate jurisdiction of the court. These countries have altered their national constitutions to make the CCJ their final court of appeal for civil and criminal matters.

But, the original jurisdiction of the CCJ applies to all 15 full member states of CARICOM: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.

The CCJ’s original jurisdiction allows it to serve as an international court, interpreting and applying the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which established the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). This means it can resolve disputes between CARICOM member states regarding the interpretation of the treaty, including matters related to the freedom of movement of people, goods, services, capital, and skills.

Dr Yearwood pointed out that 20 years into the existence of the regional court, Trinidad has refused to join the appellate jurisdiction, thus proving him correct that the language being used and approaches adopted by the pro-CCJ and anti-CCJ advocates are not working.

Dr Yearwood insisted this will not change the merits or demerits of the court, but suggested that a critical look at the court is in order, especially when it comes to the view that it creates a homogenous Caribbean identity, “something we need to question and understand what the court is doing.”

“The reality is,” he said, “that people all over the world are questioning whether liberal democracies…part of their independence projects… are questioning whether the decolonial projects that we are celebrating, delivers services. Does it deliver on the ground, does it improve their lives; has independence offered the people of the Caribbean the hopes and the dreams that were so brilliantly expressed in Woodford Square and Independence Square in Barbados, all across the region. And that is something that we as intellectuals must contend with to understand.”

Dr Yearwood further queried whether the independence projects in the region are failing the people as a region, and therefore, what is the story of the Caribbean Court of Justice in that project, and how can it help in the renewal of the independence undertaking.

“But what these opposing debates have done, is ‘nested’ oppositions in that the debates are feeding on each other and in doing so, they are talking past each other. So we have had 20 years of conversations with some on this side and some on this side; there has never ever been any compromise in the middle. And the reality is, in some ways, maybe the universe of these two debates, they cannot understand each other. They will continue to talk past each other,” the law researcher pointed out.

So how do we actually break the backs of these two debates? He questioned.

“We got 20 years of evidence that it isn’t working. What we are doing right now, is not working. Trinidad and Jamaica and the others are not budging. What are we going to do; are we going to spend another 20 years? How do we move this forward?” he asked.

“However, there may be something to the fact that we have to acknowledge that we in the Caribbean, because of poor political systems and the Westminster ‘westmonster’ have handed over law-making to the courts . . . because the politicians aren’t getting it right and don’t want to get it right, or maybe can’t get it right. It then ends up in a court.”

He explained that when a case goes before the CCJ, they can’t refuse to adjudicate it and send it back to Parliament because there would be outrage if they did that.  He said the CCJ’s mission is to decolonise, while the Privy Council can return the matter to the Parliament because their mission is English jurisprudence.

The law lecturer suggested that instead of asking about the merits or demerits of the Caribbean Court of Justice or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, using the usual comparisons, why not change the question.

“Why don’t we ask what stories do the Caribbean Court of Justice tell? What stories do the Privy Council tell? And then the follow-up: Are those the stories of the Caribbean people that you in Trinidad and Tobago want told, or me, in Barbados, or St Lucia or Guyana, Dominica or wherever you are…are those the stories that you want told?”

“The Parliament in Trinidad has to make a decision as to what it’s going to do. If Parliament accepts that through independence, through republicanism that there is a decolonialism mission and decolonial principles in Trinidad, then, rejecting the CCJ, would contradict those decolonial principles. You could have two-thirds majority vote, but you should have constituent assemblies to try to move this forward,” Dr Yearwood recommended.

The main purpose of the symposium is to foster positive debate on the possible accession of Trinidad and Tobago to the CCJ and promote educational awareness on the role of the court.

(EJ)