The Vybz Kartel trial and Jamaica’s call to judicial independence
THE EDITOR, Madam:
THE RECENT Privy Council hearing of Jamaica’s dancehall artiste Adidja Palmer’s (Vybz Kartel) appeal against his conviction has reignited a long-standing debate: Should Jamaica continue to recognise the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as its final court of appeal? This submission argues that the recent hearing of the Privy Council appeal, which was live-streamed, is evidence that the time has come for Jamaica to affirm its sovereignty and its judicial independence by withdrawing from the UK-based vestige of colonialism.
The live-streaming of this appeal, for which many of us have been profoundly grateful, has not only situated Jamaica’s justice system under the global spotlight, but also underscored the argument that the Privy Council does not possess any superior legal intellect absent from Jamaica’s own appellate bench. As the legal arguments and submissions unfolded (from both sides), the global audience watched and listened attentively to the inquiries made by the Law Lords and Lady. This observation highlighted the fact that there is no unique wisdom or insight offered by the Privy Council that could not have been equally matched by the Caribbean Court of Justice. Continuing to rely on the Privy Council as Jamaica’s final court of appeal is incongruent with Jamaica’s status as a truly independent nation. I submit that this continued reliance on the Privy Council is a relic of colonialism that continues to dilute Jamaica’s independence and, by extension, its judicial and intellectual sovereignty.The time has come for us as a region to embrace our judicial wisdom and decisions with full confidence.We could see in real time that the Privy Council judges, while distinguished, are not immersed in Jamaican culture and societal norms, which incur the risk of findings and judgments that do not fully resonate with local contexts and values. Transitioning to a regional Caribbean Court of Justice not only eliminates the possible cultural and contextual dissonance of the Privy Council, but will cause justice to be made more accessible to more Jamaicans. The cost and complexity associated with appealing to the Privy Council is prohibitive to many and results in making justice available only to the wealthy, such as Mr Palmer and his co-accused.
Critics who oppose withdrawal from the Privy Council argue that the body represents impartiality and a high quality of justice. But I argue that a Caribbean Court of Justice and impartiality are not mutually exclusive. Other countries, such as Canada, Australia and India, have successfully established their own final courts of appeal, a move that solidified their judicial independence without compromising their quality of justice. Mr Palmer’s live-streamed appeal not only underscores the need for Jamaica to reassess its judicial ties to the Privy Council, but also serves as affirmation that Jamaica and the Caribbean have the competence, capacity and legal framework to render justice with integrity, fairness, and independence wholly within their own regional context.
AMH