THE EDITOR, Madam:
I HAVE been following the debate on the establishment of the CCJ, with emphasis on the aspect of its replacing the Privy Council as a final appellate court. Every dissenting speaker or pressure group says there ought to be a referendum, for the masses to decide on a withdrawal or retention of the Privy Council.
However, before the referendum is held the same masses need to hear in a civilised dispassionate manner, the merits and demerits of both courts. So if indeed there be a referendum, we make a right choice.
Dr. Vasciannie's article on Monday is a case in point. In simple, straightforward language he was able to get out the desirability of such an action.
I would like the doctor to clarify few simple points for me:
1) Will each of the other participating countries hold a similar referendum? If no, what process did each use to get consensus from its population?
2) Should Jamaica hold a referendum and vote "no", would that prevent the other countries from going ahead without Jamaica and establish the court?
3) What rights and privileges do we have under the Privy Council, that we stand to lose under the CCJ?
4) Someone has said that England has to change parts of its constitution for acceptance into the EU. If this is so, will it affect our relationship with the Privy Council?
How is it that as a crown colony 'naive' leaders could help us take that giant leap into Independence, without a referendum, yet this set, who have more learning than the law allows, can't handle a microcosm of that great achievement?
I am appealing to our leaders if such a court is necessary please to sit down and iron out the kinks properly. Establish it and move on to overhaul the entire justice system, then accord it independence from political interference.
The current divisive brawl that you are engaged in, is not in the masses' favour. It is way too unbecoming of leaders, who want sensible people to take them seriously to be so puerile. Stop the bickering!
I am, etc.,
VERONICA THOMAS
Rock River P.O.
Clarendon
