By Robert Hart/Damion Mitchell, Staff ReportersTHE COURT of Appeal has opted to wait until next week before ruling on whether the Full Court was correct in throwing out a motion challenging the constitutionality of the process being used to establish the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
During yesterday's hearing, the Appeal Court said it would give its ruling on June 17 when it would state whether the Judicial Review Court was correct in discarding the motion filed in February by lawyers representing Opposition Leader Edward Seaga and other parties.
Mr. Seaga and other interested parties are arguing that three Bills related to the CCJ tabled in the Senate in December will not ensure the body is entrenched in the Constitution of Jamaica.
Meanwhile, Opposition Senator Anthony Johnson yesterday applauded the Government's decision to postpone, for the second time, the parliamentary debate on the three Bills. Justice Minister Senator A.J. Nicholson, who made the disclosure on Wednesday afternoon, reiterated the Government's position during yesterday's sitting of the Upper House.
Johnson, who is Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate, said he hoped the Government's decision would mark a major step in the understanding of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judicial system.
A CLEAR DIVIDE
"In our 42 years of Independence, we have not had many cases in which there has been a clear divide or a great difficulty as to who exercises which powers when and how," Senator Johnson said during yesterday's sitting of the Senate. He added: "I am glad to see that the Minister has taken the view not to get himself involved in dispute or a situation where the one or the other could have been guilty of interference."
The Opposition member
was responding to the Justice Minister's announcement that the Government would not start the debate on the CCJ Bills, which was scheduled to begin during yesterday's sitting. Senator Nicholson, who is also the Attorney-General, had first postponed the debate in February when the initial challenge was filed in the court.
The Government again postponed the debate on Wednesday, the same day it was made public that the claimants would be applying to the Court of Appeal to have an order granted which would bar the Parliament from having the Bills read a second time. Yesterday, the claimants backed off on that threat when Solicitor General Michael Hylton assured the Appeal Court that the matters relating to the CCJ would not be debated in the Houses of Parliament until the Court had made its decision.
In April, the claimants had appealed the Judicial Review Court ruling against the original motion. Though initially set for June 7 and 8, that appeal process has yet to be concluded.
Yesterday, the Attorney-General said it "would certainly not be seemly for the debate in Parliament to take place concurrently with those arguments being proceeded with before the court." But Senator Nicholson was subsequently irked by Senator Johnson's suggestion that the Government should have never attempted such an early debate on the Bills.
Senator Johnson said: "We found it rather strange that a schedule had been adopted whereby today (yesterday) had been established for hearing this matter which would begin on Monday (June 7), it being the custom as I am advised for matters before the Court of Appeal to take some time."
Senator Nicholson responded: "It is odd isn't it that weeks ago, the Opposition was told that the date for debate would be June 10. It is odd that at that time we didn't hear anything about bad scheduling."
