Freedom of movement curtailed since independence of Caribbean countries

By Oscar Ramjeet



The freedom of movement of Caribbean nationals has been severely curtailed since the breakup of the West Indies Federation five decades ago and the various countries in the region gaining independence.

It is unfortunate because in the colonial days persons were free to move from one country to another, even to Barbados, without hitch, but because some governments became intoxicated with sovereignty they imposed serious restrictions.

And although the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Single Market and Economy (CSME) made provisions for free movements of professionals, musicians, journalists, etc., here is still a problem and regionalism does not seem to exist anymore.

There was some hope with the establishment of the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the West Indies cricket team, but that seems to be shattered because there is no longer that regional togetherness of UWI students because of recent significant changes.

For instance, students from Guyana now complete their LLB degrees in Guyana and no longer have to travel to Barbados, where hundreds of students enroll every year, and now Jamaica is offering the LLB programme and this reduces the Jamaican student population at Cave Hill.

Bahamas now has its own law school and, as a result, would-be lawyers study at home.

From the 1950s up to recently, all medical students in the region have had to attend Mona, but now they can do so in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Grenada, and other Caribbean islands.

The poor performance of the West Indies cricket team has forced thousands of cricket fans to lose interest in the game and that to some degree has some effect on Caribbean unity.

The shameful behaviour of immigration and police officers at the Grantley Adams International airport against fellow Caribbean nationals should be dealt with by the Caribbean Community and it is unfortunate that CARICOM moves so slowly with these issues, as well as Caribbean unity.

Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bisssessar made a couple of unfortunate statements that Trinidad and Tobago is not an ATM machine for other CARICOM countries, but she has nevertheless said that she is very much in favour of regional integration.

Owen Arthur, former Barbados prime minister, who was masquerading and preaching the importance of CSME, was critical of Mara Thompson, running for a seat in Barbados because she was not a born Bajan, but a St Lucian, although she was married to a Bajan, late Prime Minister David Thompson, for more than 20 years.

The British Overseas Dependant Territories of Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos require entry certificates (visas) from Jamaicans, Guyanese and citizens of the Dominican Republic.

For years the CARICOM has been discussing freedom of movement, but it seems as if they are not getting anywhere; as a matter of fact, it is getting worse since there is more harassment at airports, especially Barbados.

There have been reports that, in Antigua and Barbuda, Guyanese nationals are given a rough time by the Baldwin Spencer administration.

What is also unfortunate is the lack of interest and in some instances the refusal of governments to get rid of the Privy Council as their final court and accept the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final court.

Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were the first countries to gain independence from Britain in August 1962, and it unfortunate that after nearly five decades they are still holding on to the coat tails of the United Kingdom for justice. If you had political independence so long ago why not judicial independence, especially since you have highly qualified judges who can do a better job than the English Law Lords, who are so far away and do not understand the Caribbean culture and way of life.

April 11, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Bruce Golding may have had a change of heart about the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

Golding seems to have had a change of heart about CCJ

by Oscar Ramjeet


As Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar seems to move further away from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), her Jamaican counterpart, Bruce Golding, may have had a change of heart.

Golding issued a statement a few days ago clarifying his position about the regional court in response to criticism launched against him by the outgoing president of the Court, Michael da la Bastide on his stand against the CCJ. The Jamaican leader said that he never refused to join the court, but needed time to decide. His recent statement is in contrast to earlier comments he made about Jamaica setting up its own final court of appeal.

However, his last statement said that he will meet with opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller to discuss what move Jamaica should take as regards abolishing appeals to the Privy Council. Simpson Miller is all in favour of the regional court.

It is unfortunate that the Trinidad leader, who is a Caribbean trained attorney, is taking such a stand against the CCJ when her party, the UNC, under the leadership of Basdeo Panday, was in the forefront advocating the establishment of the regional court, and it is because of Panday's vigorous stand and upon his request the Court is headquartered in Port of Spain, and most of the technical and support staff are nationals of the twin island republic.

It is also ironic that Jamaica is distancing itself from the regional court when it was under the JLP administration the idea was conceived and its then attorney general Oswald Harding was island hopping with his Trinidad and Tobago counterpart, the late Selwyn Richardson, lobbying regional governments to join the court.

It is important that these two large countries in the region join the Court and make full use of the modern facilities available in order to improve local jurisprudence, since so far only three jurisdictions, Guyana, Barbados and Belize, have abolished appeals to the Privy Council.

The Grenada prime minister, who is also a Caribbean trained attorney, has hinted that he will sooner or later initiate steps to join the court, but there is no word from his St Lucian counterpart. However, opposition leader, Kenny Anthony, is a strong advocate for the court, and with elections coming up before year end, there is some hope that Castries will come on board.

St Vincent and the Grenadines lost its referendum for the regional court, but the referendum was packed with other controversial issues, which no doubt was the reason why it failed.

Now that Ralph Gonsalves is back in power for the third consecutive term, he might later down the road try to get the nod of the electorate.

I was reliably informed that the OECS attorneys general had a meeting recently and decided to recommend to their prime ministers for them to include referendum for the CCJ in their general elections. In other words, the electorates will not only vote for a (new) government, but will also decide whether or not to retain the Privy Council as the final court or adopt the Caribbean regional court.

March 26, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

What was the process applied in appointing the new Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) chief justice?

By Ian Francis


The recent news from the Caribbean Court of Justice and the CARICOM Secretariat indicating that Sir Dennis Byron has been appointed as chief justice of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) came to many regional observers as a great surprise and possible disappointment. It was popularly felt that injection of new and progressive blood was necessary for the CCJ, given the enormous amount of work to be undertaken for the future growth and sustainability of the organisation.

The appointment of Byron is not being opposed in this article, as it is felt and known that he is a very competent jurist who has served the region with great distinction. I want to wish Sir Dennis good luck and longevity as he prepares to assume the position of a regional court with only three members. Given Sir Dennis’s legal and administrative skills and experience, there is very little doubt that he will attempt to make a very valuable contribution to the CCJ, focusing on its future growth, which must include an increased membership.

While the selection and appointment of Sir Dennis as chief justice of the CCJ is not being viewed in a negative light, the need to delve further and gain valuable information about the selection and appointment process method applied by the Council of Ambassadors are reasonable questions to ask with the hope that truthful and credible answers are shared.

If the Council of Ambassadors were to adopt the notion of transparency and good governance, then it is reasonable to assume that the average “Joe Blow” in the region will get a much deeper insight into the decision-making process of the Council of Ambassadors. They are obligated to enlighten the region’s population about their decision making process within the CARICOM organisation. In an era of transparency and accountability, the sharing of this information is necessary if the recognised need to enlighten, increase awareness and understanding about CARICOM and its Council of Ambassadors is to be realised.

Prior to the inter-sessional pow wow in Grenada, it was known throughout the region that the Council of Ambassadors had two very critical appointments to make with respect to a new secretary general for the CARICOM Secretariat and a chief justice for the Caribbean Court of Justice. While it is recognized that the Council or Heads have the authority or mandate for such appointments, their authority should not be blindfolded or impaired by ensuring that proper human resource principles and practices are adopted when making such important appointments.

In July 2010, when former Secretary General Carrington and CCJ Chief Justice de la Bastide indicated that they would demit office, it was felt that the broad regional clamour for transparency and accountability in CARICOM might begin with the newly touted of “Council of Ambassadors”. There was great hope and expectation that the Council of Ambassadors would be more progressive, innovative and strategic in their approach with the decision making process in the Secretariat.

Unfortunately, based on internal information gleaned and received from credible sources within the Secretariat, it would appear that the newly touted “Council of Ambassadors” returned to their “old dog tricks” by applying an old decision making model of appointment by consensus..

With all of the above observations, it would appear that the development and implementation of a human resource strategy for the Secretariat has been ignored. There was no written job description for the chief justice position; no posting for the vacant position; no search, interviewing and recruitment committee established. Had these measures being in place, it would have afforded a broad spectrum of applicants from throughout the Caribbean region seeking the position of chief justice.

While at this stage the selection and appointment of a secretary general is unknown, it is sincerely hoped that the Council of Ambassadors will return to the drawing board by recognising and understanding that the process for selecting and appointing a new Secretary General of CARICOM requires a more visionary approach.

I wish Sir Dennis well in his new challenge. There is no doubt that he is indeed a formidable jurist and will do extremely well at the Caribbean Court of Justice. However, if the visionless Council of Ambassadors had seriously applied a transparent selection process, many more like Sir Dennis could have emerged and been considered for this very important position.

Now that the Council of Ambassadors have returned to their governing sanctuaries following their inter-sessional meeting in Grenada, they must once again be reminded of the wise comments made by Prime Minister Douglas of St Kitts and Nevis. He has requested fellow colleagues to be more reflective and analytical when handling important CARICOM matters.

In my view, Douglas’s comments require great attention and should influence our regional leaders with their governance and decision making style. They really need to measure up or face the emerging forces that are clamoring for change and participation. There are already clear warning signs in St Lucia, Grenada and Antigua that are likely to bring about electoral changes. It is very doubtful as to whether the Council of Ambassadors can influence the outcome of the pending electoral changes.

Let’s watch our Council of Ambassadors and their forthcoming report scheduled to be delivered at the next CARICOM meeting scheduled for the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis in July 2011.The region’s population are getting wary of the Council of Ambassadors’ tomfoolery.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto and writes frequently on Caribbean affairs. He is a former Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs., Grenada. He can be reached at info@vismincommunications.org

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) - are we ready?

Law and Politics: The CSME and the CCJ - are we ready?
By Lloyd Noel:


Now that we have just celebrated our thirty-seventh anniversary of independence, from the colonial rule of England way back in 1974 – but having maintained our association and membership of the British Commonwealth of nations over all those years – we in the tri-Island State of Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique seem to be on the verge of severing all those ties that assisted us in becoming who we are, and achieving what we have by reason of that association.

And as we are about to travel down that road, to some unknown destination in the new world order, it may be useful to look back from whence we came, to reflect on where exactly we are at this time, and what in fact and in reality we have thus far achieved.

Of course, I must admit up front that I have been very, very fortunate, as far as my personal achievements have been over the years from those colonial days – and some may be tempted to suggest that it is because of my good fortunes during my sojourn in England that I still harbour the fond memories and gratitude of the country and people and their customs.

But I will readily respond to that suggestion by making bold to say, without fear of any contradiction, that the great majority of those thousands of West Indians who travelled to England in those colonial days, to work and start a new life, they too still cherish the opportunities and achievements.

It was while thousands of us were already in the Mother Country in Great Britain, when the first attempt at the unified West Indies came on stream with the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 – but it only lasted for four years (1958-1962), when Jamaica decided to secede, by formally withdrawing from the Federation; and the late P.M. of Trinidad and Tobago, Eric Williams, created new maths by announcing that, because there were ten states in the Federation and Jamaica was withdrawing, then one from ten leaves nought, so Trinidad and Tobago was also moving out, and that was the end.

And it was from then that the rush to political independence by the Big Four started; Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana all went on to break their colonial ties with England, although thousands of their nationals were very firmly rooted in the mother country and doing very well for themselves.

From then on the same Big Four states tried to get the same West Indian islands to form an economic union, and the Caribbean Community or CARICOM is what remains of that effort.

Over the years, of course, all the smaller islands went on to achieve their independence – except Montserrat, the BVI and Anguilla -- and that rush to statehood began with Grenada in February, 1974.

Needless to repeat the happenings since then, but now we have the “CARICOM Single Market and Economy” (CSME), and included therein is the “Caribbean Court of Justice” (CCJ), which is the body responsible for the due administration of the Single Market; but more importantly any of the independent states can decide to adopt the CCJ as its final court of appeal, for both civil and criminal and constitutional matters, and by so doing abolish appeals to the Privy Council final court of appeal in England that the West Indies have always been accustomed to, both as colonies and independent states since 1962.

The strange thing about the membership of the CCJ is that, while all the independent states signed on the CSME, only Barbados and Guyana started off using the CCJ as their final court of appeal, and late last year, Belize adopted the court and abolished the Privy Council.

Trinidad and Tobago, where the court has its headquarters, has not adopted it, and the newly elected government that came into office last year are thinking of referring the option to the people for a decision.

And even the Jamaica government is now saying that it is considering establishing its own final appeal court.

Against that state of disunity and disorganisation, our own government is now saying that it will soon be adopting the CCJ as our final court of appeal, to replace the Privy Council in England.

Maybe I missed it whenever it was said, but I have never heard any statement from this government about the preference of the CCJ over the Privy Council, and neither has any opportunity been given to Grenadians to express their opinions or views on the matter. And there can be no doubt whatsoever, that this very fundamental decision, after all those years of the very excellent services we have received from the judges of the highest quality and experience, our people should have been given the opportunity to have their say.

And in the absence of that very basic and highly principled opportunity, I cannot support the government’s decision to go it alone. I hope it is not regretted before too long.

What is also of some importance to the whole concept of regional unity, at the lower level of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) in particular, is that we have been sharing a common court system, from our associated statehood days since 1967, and we continue to do so after independence right up to the Privy Council.

I have not heard of the same unified position with the other five states on this matter – but maybe I missed it, while they all were busy promoting the latest unitary animal in the recently publicised “OECS Economic Union” – for the free movement of people and capital throughout the six independent states, with the hope that the three remaining colonies of England will sooner or later get the UK’s go-ahead to join the economic union.

To take the confused situation of so many so-called unity groups in our region – all serving the same little population at different levels -- should a company in St Lucia open a business entity in Grenada, and that business has a court case in the Grenada court, it can go to the OECS Court of Appeal and then to the CCJ final court of appeal in Trinidad.

And if the same company has a case in St Lucia, it can go to the OECS Court of Appeal and then must go to the Privy Council in London for a final decision. It would be interesting if the legal issue is similar in both OECS Court of Appeal but the final decisions at the CCJ and the Privy Council differ.

To think that we in these Caribbean Isles have been playing around with this concept of unity for so many years, and for one reason or another the governments cannot get it right -- that must have some bearing on the fact that the politicians who come and go in the various islands all seem to take the position that they alone have all the answers so they never put it to their people to say yea or nay.

We saw what happened in St Vincent, when the government there put the proposed amended constitution to the people and they rejected it – yet in general elections thereafter the same people voted the same government back into power for a third term.

And that is why I agree with the Trinidad and Tobago prime minister, to put the question of whether or not they opt for the CCJ in place of the Privy Council to the people for a decision.

I saw the news item last week that the NDC government plans to hold its party General Council meeting next month, on the 13th March at the Boca Secondary School.

The same meeting was postponed last November, around the time there was the breakdown in unity over the re-shuffle of those three ministers, and one minister actually resigned from Cabinet.

The party general secretary is the minister of tourism, Peter David, and he was removed from foreign affairs back to tourism. He has since been saying that he is rebuilding the party machinery, but the 13th March is a date that is synonymous with the PRG of 1979, not the NDC of Prime Minister Tillman Thomas, on which bandwagon he entered Parliament.

So the questions beg themselves – was the choice of that date a wise decision in the circumstances?

And will it help to rebuild the NDC Party, and at the same time keep the thousands who voted for NDC loyal enough to so vote the next time?

I was chatting with an ex-PRA of the Revolution days, the day after I saw the news item, and he too felt the date of 13th March was much too sensitive at this time – bearing in mind all the events that have taken place.

Time alone will tell, in the months and years ahead.

But like all the issues mentioned above that will affect us as a people in the times ahead, the even bigger question presents itself: are we ready for the possible changes that can result therefrom?

February 22, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 2)

By Sir Shridath Ramphal


Nothing speaks louder of CARICOM’s current debilitation than our substantial denial of the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Bar Association of Grenada is host to this Lecture Series, which is a memorial to a great West Indian lawyer. It is poignant that the Inaugural Lecture in this series delivered in 1996 was entitled: Essentials for a West Indies Supreme Court to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final Appellate Court for Commonwealth Caribbean States and Territories. Fifteen years later, it is still apposite that I address this issue when we talk of being West Indian.

In 2001, twelve CARICOM countries decided they would abolish appeals to the Privy Council and establish their own Caribbean Court of Justice, serving all the countries of the Caribbean Community with both original jurisdiction in regional integration matters and appellate jurisdiction as the final court of appeal for individual CARICOM countries. As of now, only Guyana (which had abolished appeals to the Privy Council on independence, believing it to be a natural incident of ‘sovereignty’), Barbados and now Belize have conferred on the CCJ that appellate jurisdiction

Constitutional amendment is required for the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. In practical terms, this means bipartisan political support for the CCJ. In Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago (where the Court has its much sought after location) that political consensus does not exist – because the political party now in office in each of those two major regional jurisdictions has turned its back on its regional court. In St Vincent and the Grenadines, a referendum last year rejected the transference of appeals to the CCJ.

The situation has been complicated by the issue of the death penalty, on which the Privy Council, reflecting contemporary English (and EU) mores and jurisprudence, has been rigorous in upholding Caribbean appeals in death sentence cases. Someday, the Caribbean as a whole must accept abolition of the death penalty; I believe we should have done so already; but, in a situation of heightened crime in the region, popular sentiment has induced political reticence. Even so, however, the Privy Council’s anachronistic jurisdiction persists; and the Caribbean Court of Justice remains hobbled in pursuing its enlightened role in Caribbean legal reform.

It is almost axiomatic that the Caribbean Community should have its own final Court of Appeal in all matters – that the West Indies at the highest level of jurisprudence should be West Indian. A century-old tradition of erudition and excellence in the legal profession of the region leaves no room for hesitancy. As a West Indian I despair, as a West Indian lawyer I am ashamed, that the West Indies should be a major reason for the unwelcome retention of the Privy Council’s jurisdiction within the halls of the new Supreme Court in England. Having created our own Caribbean Court of Justice it is an act of abysmal contrariety that we have so substantially withheld its appellate jurisdiction in favour of that of the Privy Council – we who have sent judges to the International Court of Justice, to the International Criminal Court and to the International Court for the former Yugoslavia, to the Presidency of the United Nations Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (from Grenada); we from whose Caribbean shores have sprung in lineal descent the former and current attorneys general of Britain and the United States respectively.

As I recall this register of West Indian legal erudition, let me pause to pay tribute to the memory of Prof Ralph Carnegie who left us last month – a veritable icon of learning in the law and of service to it – and always a West Indian. As CCJ Judge Winston Anderson acknowledged at his funeral service, he died sadly without attainment of his vision of a fully functioning Caribbean Court of Justice, and fearful of the prospects for the legal monument he strove so hard to build. We owe him a more lasting memorial.

This absurd and unworthy paradox of heritage and hesitancy must be resolved by action. In law, as in ourselves, the West Indies must be West Indian. Those countries still hesitant must find the will and the way to end this anomaly, and perhaps it will be easier if they act as one. The truth is that the alternative to such action is too self-destructive to contemplate. The demise of the Court itself is not an improbable danger when in both Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago the creation of a local final Court of Appeal is being canvassed. Loss of the CCJ will almost certainly frustrate progress on a Single Market and Economy -- the vision of Grand Anse. We will have begun tearing up the Treaty of Chaguaramas, whose Preamble recites “that the original jurisdiction of the CCJ is essential to the successful operation of the CSME”. If West Indian lawyers, in particular, remain complacent about this absurdity much longer – and I am afraid some are -- we will begin to make a virtue of it, and in the end dismantle more than the Court.

So grave and present is this danger that in August last, five West Indians to whom the region has given its highest honour, the Order of the Caribbean Community, took the unprecedented step of warning publicly “with one voice of the threat being posed to the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Community’s goals more generally”. I was among them. “We warn against these developments” we wrote, “which, as in an earlier era, could bring down the structures for advancing the interests of the people of CARICOM … carefully constructed and nurtured over many decades by sons and daughters of all CARICOM countries”. We were warning of the mire of despond we would stumble into if in this matter the West Indies ceased to be West Indian.

But let me add what we all know, though seldom say: to give confidence to our publics in their adoption of the CCJ as the ultimate repository of justice in the West Indies, our governments must be assiduous in demonstrating respect for all independent West Indian constitutional bodies (like the Director of Public Prosecutions) lest by transference, governments are not trusted to keep their hands off the CCJ. And Courts themselves, at every level, must be manifestly free from political influence and be seen to be sturdy custodians of that freedom. In the end, the independence of West Indian judiciaries must rest on a broad culture of respect for the authority and independence of all constitutional office holders – for the Rule of Law.

We must not forget that the structure of the CCJ goes further than does that of any court in the region, and most courts in the Commonwealth, in securing independence from political influence, much less political control. It is at least as free of such local control as is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and freer than any national or sub-regional Court. West Indian people who want such a Court that is beyond the reach of politics must understand – and must be helped to understand – that they have it in the CCJ.

The question, therefore, cannot be avoided: is a regional political leadership that conjures with rejecting the CCJ doing so because it is beyond political reach? I cannot believe that; but, in my own judgment, with the Privy Council no longer a realistic option, the CCJ is the most reliable custodian that West Indians could have of the Rule of Law in the region. Despite this, will we once more, with the gains of oneness in our grasp, forego being West Indian?

The foregoing is an extract from the Eleventh Sir Archibald Nedd Memorial Lecture delivered by Sir Shridath Ramphal in Grenada on 28 January 2011.

February 9, 2011

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 1)

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 3)

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International