Terminating the Privy Coucil: Surrender to silliness
Making the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) the country's final
appellate court should require no justification. But the PM's statement
in support of that move is more debatable than the CCJ itself.
Offered as a celebration of 50 years of independence, the PM's statement on the CCJ fails to recognise the true celebration of self-determination is not the substitution of the country's final appellate court. It will be the crafting of a constitution which upholds the values of the society, a matter which the PM happened to ignore.
After Pratt and Morgan, the former colonies were handed the challenge of defining their independence by reshaping and rewriting their constitutions. Instead they succumbed to the usual inertia, head-scratching, finger-pointing and inaction which are central to the post-independence experience. Ultimately Pratt and Morgan, the death penalty dilemma and the persistent crime are indicative of the inability to handle the tools of independence.
In selecting criminal appeals for the initial phase the PM offers the weakest justification for retaining the Privy Council for civil appeals, a move which confirms our penchant for anything half-made. Second, the substitution of an appellate court as a means of side-stepping sensible data on the futility of the death penalty is not an affirmation of independence but the surrender to silliness.
In retaining the Privy Council for civil appeals the PM has said
that "it inspires confidence in foreign investors'' and its retention is
conducive to an investor-friendly climate. The PM has offered no
evidence of a link between the final appellate court, commercial
certainty and attracting foreign investment. It is a weak argument which
ignores the commercial reality that foreign investors enjoy significant
legal certainty through the international arbitration clauses which are
standard in commercial contracts.
When you consider the parts of the world which have attracted significant foreign investment and the political and judicial uncertainties in those places, the suggestion that judicial certainty is a critical element of foreign investment is unsupportable. Venezuela is an example of the risks foreign investors will take, especially the risk of expropriation, nationalisation and loss of shareholder value if the investment conditions are favourable. The PM should be more concerned about competitiveness and the creation of an attractive climate than with the significance of a final appellate court to investors.
On the substitution of the Privy Council, the PM has highlighted the need to "overcome the hindrances to the implementation of the death penalty arising out of various Privy Council decisions''. But the problems go deeper than the Privy Council. They are localised, spread over the post-independence period and embody a failure of political leadership.
The fact is that the Privy Council has not imposed its will on the country. It has applied its craft to the constitutions it has been handed to interpret and has come to conclusions which are no different for T&T when compared to the countries which have the cruel and inhumane provision in their constitutions.
 |
| UK Privy Council's Lord Justice Phillips |
Offered as a celebration of 50 years of independence, the PM's statement on the CCJ fails to recognise the true celebration of self-determination is not the substitution of the country's final appellate court. It will be the crafting of a constitution which upholds the values of the society, a matter which the PM happened to ignore.
After Pratt and Morgan, the former colonies were handed the challenge of defining their independence by reshaping and rewriting their constitutions. Instead they succumbed to the usual inertia, head-scratching, finger-pointing and inaction which are central to the post-independence experience. Ultimately Pratt and Morgan, the death penalty dilemma and the persistent crime are indicative of the inability to handle the tools of independence.
In selecting criminal appeals for the initial phase the PM offers the weakest justification for retaining the Privy Council for civil appeals, a move which confirms our penchant for anything half-made. Second, the substitution of an appellate court as a means of side-stepping sensible data on the futility of the death penalty is not an affirmation of independence but the surrender to silliness.
When you consider the parts of the world which have attracted significant foreign investment and the political and judicial uncertainties in those places, the suggestion that judicial certainty is a critical element of foreign investment is unsupportable. Venezuela is an example of the risks foreign investors will take, especially the risk of expropriation, nationalisation and loss of shareholder value if the investment conditions are favourable. The PM should be more concerned about competitiveness and the creation of an attractive climate than with the significance of a final appellate court to investors.
On the substitution of the Privy Council, the PM has highlighted the need to "overcome the hindrances to the implementation of the death penalty arising out of various Privy Council decisions''. But the problems go deeper than the Privy Council. They are localised, spread over the post-independence period and embody a failure of political leadership.
The fact is that the Privy Council has not imposed its will on the country. It has applied its craft to the constitutions it has been handed to interpret and has come to conclusions which are no different for T&T when compared to the countries which have the cruel and inhumane provision in their constitutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment