Opinion | Accompong News
Written by Duncan Bertram
The controversy now unfolding inside the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has given opponents of Jamaica’s accession a fresh argument for retaining the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the country’s final court of appeal.
That argument deserves to be heard.
But it should not obscure a more fundamental reality: the CCJ is Jamaica’s court too.
It is a Caribbean institution created by Caribbean states to serve Caribbean people, with Jamaica itself participating in the regional legal framework. The question before Jamaica is therefore not whether it should replace one foreign court with another.
It is whether Jamaica should complete the transition from a final appellate court outside the region to a Caribbean final court in which Jamaica has a direct stake and which is geographically, institutionally and culturally closer to the Jamaican people.
The recent controversy, properly understood, strengthens rather than weakens the case for completing that transition.
The CCJ is not foreign to Jamaica
There is sometimes a tendency in the Jamaican debate to describe the CCJ as though it were an institution imposed upon Jamaica from elsewhere in the Caribbean.
That is misleading.
The CCJ is a regional court established through the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice. Jamaica is part of the CARICOM framework surrounding the court, and the CCJ was created to provide the Caribbean with its own judicial institution.
Its judges are drawn from the region and beyond, bringing different legal traditions and professional experiences to the bench. That diversity is an important feature of the court.
For Jamaica, accession to the CCJ’s appellate jurisdiction would bring the country’s final court of appeal fully into the Caribbean.
That is an important expression of judicial sovereignty.
A court closer to Jamaica
The question of accessibility should also be considered in geographical and institutional terms.
The Privy Council sits in London.
The CCJ, by contrast, is headquartered in Trinidad and Tobago and exists specifically to serve Caribbean states and their people.
That means Jamaican lawyers and litigants would engage with a final appellate court located within their own region, operating within the Caribbean’s legal and constitutional environment.
Justice is not only about the final judgment. It is also about the relationship between the court and the society it serves.
A Caribbean final court provides Jamaica with a judicial institution that is physically closer and more directly connected to the region’s legal institutions.
The CCJ therefore represents more than a change of venue. It represents a shift toward a Caribbean system of final appellate justice.
A court suited to Jamaica’s next constitutional chapter
There is also a broader constitutional question.
The Privy Council has served Jamaica for generations, and its contribution to Jamaican jurisprudence should be recognised. But Jamaica’s constitutional future is increasingly tied to the development of its identity as a Caribbean republic.
As Jamaica advances toward republic status, the CCJ gives the country greater room to operate within a Caribbean framework built on shared history, culture, legal traditions and common regional interests.
This is not an argument for withdrawing from the wider international community.
It is an argument for strengthening Jamaica’s place within the Caribbean.
Jamaica’s constitutional questions increasingly intersect with regional integration, constitutional rights, public administration, commerce, migration, environmental pressures, climate change and other issues that affect Caribbean societies collectively.
A Caribbean court is institutionally positioned to understand these realities from within the region.
The CCJ’s judges do not represent individual governments. They are expected to exercise judicial independence.
But the regional character of the institution matters.
What the controversy actually shows
The leaked correspondence involving CCJ President Justice Winston Anderson has raised serious questions about judicial administration and internal governance.
Allegations concerning presidential authority, panel assignments and the treatment of fellow judges should be examined carefully. If wrongdoing is established, appropriate consequences should follow.
But the existence of controversy does not make the CCJ less Caribbean or automatically disqualify it from serving as Jamaica’s final court.
Indeed, one of the most significant features of the controversy is that five judges were prepared to challenge the president and put their concerns on record.
That does not prove that the institution is perfect.
It does demonstrate that serious disagreement can emerge within the court and that judges can challenge the exercise of authority.
The multinational composition of the CCJ creates an additional layer of institutional diversity. Judges from different Caribbean jurisdictions and professional backgrounds bring perspectives that can help prevent any single national legal culture from dominating the institution.
For Jamaica, that is an important safeguard.
Jamaica should be part of the accountability process.
The appropriate response to the controversy is not for Jamaica to stand outside the regional judicial system.
It is to ensure that the CCJ becomes stronger.
If Jamaica accedes to the CCJ’s appellate jurisdiction, it will not simply be accepting decisions from an unfamiliar institution. It will be joining the regional system of judicial governance in which Caribbean states have a direct interest.
That means Jamaica can approach the CCJ as a stakeholder.
If weaknesses are exposed, Caribbean states have an interest in correcting them.
The controversy should therefore encourage greater transparency, stronger institutional safeguards and clearer rules governing the administration of the court.
The procedures for assigning judges to panels should be transparent. The limits of the president’s administrative authority should be clearly defined. The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission should be able to exercise its oversight responsibilities independently.
A stronger CCJ is in Jamaica’s interest.
The Privy Council and the CCJ
The comparison should also be made honestly.
The Privy Council is an external appellate institution that Jamaica inherited from its colonial constitutional history and has retained after independence.
The CCJ represents a different constitutional proposition: a Caribbean institution created by Caribbean states to provide the region with its own final court.
That distinction matters.
Jamaica achieved political independence in 1962. The question now is whether its final appellate jurisdiction should continue to rest outside the Caribbean when a regional alternative exists.
The CCJ offers Jamaica an opportunity to place final judicial authority within the region and within an institution that reflects the Caribbean’s own constitutional development.
Regional diversity is a strength.
Critics may argue that a regional court creates its own risks.
That concern should not be dismissed.
But neither should regionalism be confused with political interference.
CCJ judges are not representatives of the governments from which they originate. Their duty is to the law and to judicial independence.
The presence of Jamaican, Trinidadian, Guyanese, Belizean and other Caribbean perspectives means that the court is not confined to one national legal establishment.
For Jamaica, that diversity can be an advantage.
A Jamaican litigant appearing before the CCJ is engaging with a court whose institutional purpose is to serve Caribbean societies and develop Caribbean jurisprudence.
That is fundamentally different from relying on a final court situated outside the region.
Reform, not retreat.
None of this means Jamaica should ignore the controversy.
The allegations should be properly examined, and any established failures should be addressed.
The CCJ should use this moment to strengthen its internal governance and public confidence.
But strengthening the CCJ and rejecting it are not the same thing.
The controversy should make Jamaicans demand accountability. It should make the Caribbean strengthen its institution. It should encourage greater public understanding of how the court operates.
It should not, however, be used to suggest that Jamaica’s only safe option is to retain an external final appellate court.
Jamaica should complete the transition.
The debate over the CCJ is ultimately a debate about what judicial independence means for an independent Caribbean nation.
The CCJ is not perfect.
Neither is the Privy Council.
The relevant question is which institution better reflects Jamaica’s position as a Caribbean nation and which provides a more direct, regionally grounded path to final justice.
On that question, the case for the CCJ remains compelling.
The recent controversy should prompt scrutiny and reform, not retreat.
It should remind Jamaicans that institutions must be held accountable, including institutions created in the name of Caribbean integration.
But accountability is not an argument against Caribbean judicial sovereignty.
It is part of what makes judicial sovereignty meaningful.
As Jamaica advances toward republic status, it should also advance toward a judicial system that reflects its Caribbean identity, shared history and regional future.
The CCJ gives Jamaica that opportunity.
Jamaica should not retreat from the Caribbean. It should take its rightful place within the Caribbean’s own system of justice.
