The PNCR appears to have had no difficulty in accepting the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in its appellate jurisdiction. The CCJ was established in 2005. As a court of original jurisdiction its function is to interpret and apply the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which established the Carribean Community. Hoping that it would replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as the final court for most of the region, the Heads of Government agreed to clothe the CCJ with an appellate jurisdiction to determine appeals in civil and criminal matters for member states which cease to allow appeals to the JCPC and accede to the jurisdiction of the CCJ. In 1999-2000 the PNCR agreed, without having to be persuaded, to a recommendation by the Constitutional Reform Commission that the Constitution be amended to provide for Guyana’s accession to the CCJ when it was established.
In a statement published last Friday, Vice President Carl Greenidge reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to the CCJ. Notwithstanding adverse decisions and that only four Caricom countries so far have joined the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, the Government was satisfied with its competence and quality. The CCJ was in the news recently when it held that a law which provided that cross dressing for an “improper purpose” was unconstitutional. Also, the electorates of Grenada and Antigua, like St. Vincent a while back, rejected the CCJ as their final court in place of the JCPC. The steadfast support of the CCJ by the Government of Guyana is welcome to all lawyers and should be to all politicians.
During the lifetimes of Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan, the PPP twice, unanimously, decided to support a two-term presidential limit. A PPP delegation in 1995/6 proposed to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Reform that the constitution should be amended to provide for a two-term presidential limit. In 1999/2000, the same representation was made by the PPP to the Constitution Reform Commission. These public proposals reflected those unanimous decisions.
During the Ramotar presidency, Attorney General Anil Nandlall opposed the application by Richardson to deem as unconstitutional the amendment to the constitution that limited the presidential terms to two. Before Mr. Ramotar became president, he had publicly opposed the call for scrapping the two-term limit. He has welcomed the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will sit in Guyana for the first time this week. It is long overdue but welcome nevertheless. Guyana and Barbados were the first countries to accede to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court and our own Justice Desiree Bernard, now retiring, has been one of its first members.
Guyana’s final court of appeal, the Privy Council, was abolished in 1970. The PPP supported the establishment of our Court of Appeal but argued that the Privy Council should be retained for constitutional matters. It was felt that the Guyana judiciary was already being politically subverted and that a window of impartiality was necessary to protect at least the constitutional rights of the Guyanese people. The PPP did not succeed.
Shanique Myrie is a Jamaican national who was detained at the Grantley Adams Airport in Barbados upon arrival on March 14, 2011 and deported the following day to Jamaica. She alleged that she was subjected to a humiliating body cavity search in insanitary conditions. Ms. Myrie instituted legal proceedings at the Caribbean Court of Justice in its original jurisdiction on January 12, 2012. She claimed that her right of entry without harassment under Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (“Revised Treaty”) and a 2007 Decision of the Conference of Heads of Government (“Conference Decision”) was violated. Ms. Myrie also claimed that she was discriminated against on the ground of her nationality in violation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Revised Treaty. The Jamaican Government appeared to have put its weight and resources into the case on Ms. Myrie’s behalf.
Barbados denied all of the allegations and claimed that Ms. Myrie was rightfully refused entry because she was untruthful about the identity of her Barbadian host. Barbados also argued that the 2007 Conference Decision did not create for Ms. Myrie a legal right but that if it did, it was not an absolute right and could not be judicially reviewed. Having satisfied itself that it had jurisdiction the Court proceeded to take evidence in sittings in Jamaica and Barbados. Submissions were made at its seat in Trinidad and Tobago.