The Bahamas still holds reservations about signing with the Caribbean Court of Justice, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Public Service Fred Mitchell said on Wednesday.
At a press conference at the House of Assembly, Minister Mitchell said that before the nation makes such a decision, there must be extensive consultation and public education on the issue.
“At the moment, there does not appear to be any dissatisfaction with the Privy Council and its decisions and its ability to deliver judgments for The Bahamas. My impression is that it would not be a popular decision,” he said.
Mr. Mitchell said that The Bahamas holds the policies of the former Government, in that they do not boycott meetings of CARICOM, and are engaged in the public education exercises, but have not committed to signing on to the CCJ.
“There is no pressure. I think they would like us to but there is not pressure as such,” he said of CARICOM.
He said that as it stands, The Bahamas and St. Vincent are the major CARICOM countries that have not signed, though St. Vincent’s prime minister is highly in favour of the CCJ. That country, he said has a constitutional impediment to overcome before it can sign the agreement.
Haiti, which has a civil law system, also has not signed, Mr. Mitchell said.
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a regional judicial tribunal first proposed in 1970 by the Jamaican delegation at the Sixth Heads of Government Conference, as a substitute for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The CCJ was designed to be more than a court of last resort for member states of CARICOM. In addition to replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the CCJ will be vested with an original jurisdiction in respect of the interpretation and application of the Treaty Establishing the Caribbean Community.
In effect, the CCJ would exercise both appellate and an original jurisdiction roles.
CARICOM recommends the CCJ as the simple answer is to ensure autonomy of judicial determinations in the region in order to complete the process of independence.
Mr. Mitchell said “one has to be committed to dialogue on the point because of course the court is supplied by the British. And it is possible, given the direction British foreign policy is going in for them one day to say, we will no longer supply the court.”
He said that successive British governments have been “happy” to supply the court as long as Caribbean countries want it.
“But they are now more and more a European country, and their eyes look toward Europe as opposed to their former colonies overseas. So at some point, they might say they’re not going to supply the court. Then the question is what do we do as a country,” Mr. Mitchell said.
He said that the former attorney general Carl Bethel argued there was a need for a constitutional amendment to change the court.
“It is not my view that one is needed because the way the law reads, Parliament may, by simple act, prescribe a different court to be the final court of appeal. But I think that you really can’t do something like that without the greatest degree of consultation and public education on what it actually means,” he said.
By Vanessa Rolle, The Nassau Guardian
