David Coore, Contributor

David Coore

I hope that Edward Seaga's former colleagues in the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) will take note of his article on constitutional reform appearing in The Sunday Gleaner (Public Affairs) of last week.

He makes the concluding point that we should be focusing on implementing the substantial body of constitutional reformon which a broad national consensus exists, rather than adding new proposals that can only serve to further delay the long overdue updating and 'Jamaicanising' of our constitution.

As he rightly says, much of the basic work has already been done. Important compromises have been made by both political parties. For example, the People's National Party (PNP) is no longer insisting on a structure of government of the 'executive presidential' type, such as exists in the United States.

Both parties have agreed, in principle, on Republican status for Jamaica, while retaining the Westminster model of parliamentary government, such as exists, for example, in India and Trinidad and Tobago.

Three unresolved issues

In fact, there are really only three major issues still unresolved. These are, first, whether the head of state should be elected by a two-thirds majority of both Houses sitting together, or a two-thirds majority of each House sitting separately.

Second, whether certain sensitive offices such as that of Chief Justice, which are now in practice determined by the Prime Minister but which it is now agreed should be determined by the President, will in addition require the approval of a two-thirds majority vote in each House of Parliament.

Third, whether six of the nine members of the Public Service Commission should be appointed by the President in his discretion or appointed by him on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Some modification of existing positions will be required to settle these three issues, but if there still exists a genuine desire for constitutional reform, they can be settled without too much difficulty.

There are, of course, those who will say that there are more urgent problems in respect of social services, national security and econo-mic policy that must be dealt with before we spend time and energy on constitu-tional reform. While I can understand the temptation to accept this point of view, I believe it to be profoundly mistaken.

Certainly, no one can dispute that wemust continue to deal with our social and economic problems with all the intelligence and sense of urgency that the government of the day is obliged to summon.

But something more is needed. No sustainable solution to these current problems can be achieved without a renewed sense of national unity and self-definition, a resurgence of national self-confidence and the energising effect that comes with a sense of national purpose.

We need to set ourselves goals which challenge accepted notions of what is possible, and then to summon up the level of political maturity that will enable our political leadership to demonstrate that we can act as one family in respect of fundamental issues.

Should we not now be prepared to set ourselves some levels of achievement to which we can aspire as a nation and be prepared to make the effort to attain such goals?

We are surely all agreed that we cannot continue indefinitely with the absurdity of our Head of State and our highest Court of Appeal being located in a country which we have no inherent right to enter. Can we now display the political maturity required to make whatever compromises that are necessary to end this glaring absurdity?

Point of clarification

There is just one point in Mr. Seaga's article that needs to be clarified.

He states that the Privy Council decision that nullified the legislation establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as our final court of appeal is based on their finding that the CCJ "was wrongly formulated and structured".

This is not so. On the contrary, the Privy Council in clear terms expressly stated that they had no fault to find with the structure of the CCJ. Their decision was based entirely on their interpretation of the Jamaican Constitution and the appropriate procedure for amending it.

The Privy Council concluded that the procedure adopted to pass the necessary legislation, though adequate to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, itself, was not appropriate for its replacement by a new court.

The appropriate procedure, in their view, would have involved the parliamentary support of the Opposition party. It is important to understand the basis of the Privy Council decision because that decision did not involve any necessity to revise the treaty establishing the CCJ or to restructure the court itself.

Subject to this technical but important clarification, I do hope that those who have the responsibility of revising our constitution (and this involves both the party that governs and the party in opposition in the legislature) will heed Mr. Seaga's timely exhortation that they get on with the job of implementing those matters that have been widely discussed, agreed, and can now be implemented.

David H. Coore, O.J., Q.C., Ministry of Justice.