Dear Editor,
That former Prime Minister Edward Seaga is highly intellectual there can be no doubt. And so, whatever he writes usually reflects this. However, his writings against the Caribean Court of Justice (CCJ) being installed as our final court, without a referendum, must be seen by the discerning as missing the main issues. As the establishment of the court without a referendum is not only in accordance with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, but it is an important step in the decolonisation process, even after more than 50 years of political independence.
The irony, though, is that Seaga is the last surviving member of those involved in the provision of removal of the court without a referendum.
Seaga, who gave up his US citizenship in order to be qualified to be member of parliament, is first and foremost a politician, and so, while the positions he holds as Chancellor of the University of Technology, Jamaica, and a distinguished fellow at the University of the West Indies are on the condition that he is not an active politician, he has been expressing his political leaning through his writings and his obvious influence over Andrew Holness.
There is no merit in any argument against the CCJ becoming our final court without a referendum, not only for the reasons given and others in the public domain. I have been professionally engaged in the force, the courts, and in private practice as a lawyer (attorney/barrister-at-law) for a total of about 62 years. And my experience, and certainly of others in the justice system, is that, in the final analysis, justice in the courts depends not only on the calibre of judges -- which, of course, is always an important and compelling factor and will always be subject to human frailty -- but also important are cost and time spent before trial and time for the delivery of judgement. There has never been any complaint against the CCJ for the need to require such a provision to so regulate.
The ill-conceived arguments against the need for entrenchment advanced erroneously by the Privy Council are for another day.
Owen S Crosbie
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
Seaga wrong on CCJ referendum
-->
That former Prime Minister Edward Seaga is highly intellectual there can be no doubt. And so, whatever he writes usually reflects this. However, his writings against the Caribean Court of Justice (CCJ) being installed as our final court, without a referendum, must be seen by the discerning as missing the main issues. As the establishment of the court without a referendum is not only in accordance with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, but it is an important step in the decolonisation process, even after more than 50 years of political independence.
The irony, though, is that Seaga is the last surviving member of those involved in the provision of removal of the court without a referendum.
Seaga, who gave up his US citizenship in order to be qualified to be member of parliament, is first and foremost a politician, and so, while the positions he holds as Chancellor of the University of Technology, Jamaica, and a distinguished fellow at the University of the West Indies are on the condition that he is not an active politician, he has been expressing his political leaning through his writings and his obvious influence over Andrew Holness.
There is no merit in any argument against the CCJ becoming our final court without a referendum, not only for the reasons given and others in the public domain. I have been professionally engaged in the force, the courts, and in private practice as a lawyer (attorney/barrister-at-law) for a total of about 62 years. And my experience, and certainly of others in the justice system, is that, in the final analysis, justice in the courts depends not only on the calibre of judges -- which, of course, is always an important and compelling factor and will always be subject to human frailty -- but also important are cost and time spent before trial and time for the delivery of judgement. There has never been any complaint against the CCJ for the need to require such a provision to so regulate.
The ill-conceived arguments against the need for entrenchment advanced erroneously by the Privy Council are for another day.
Owen S Crosbie
Mandeville, Manchester
oss@cwjamaica.com
Seaga wrong on CCJ referendum
-->