Former Prime Minister PJ Patterson has emphasized that Jamaica’s constitution was never intended to permanently retain the British Privy Council as its highest Court of Appeal. Speaking at the University of the West Indies at Mona, Patterson stated that both Norman Manley and Sir Alexander Bustamante did not support the Privy Council’s continued role, which was meant to uphold British colonial interests.
Patterson, who played a key role in the creation of Jamaica’s constitution, noted that the Privy Council was a temporary measure following the dissolution of the West Indies Federation. He asserted that Jamaica’s founders envisioned a Caribbean Court at the apex of the judicial system, a goal that should not be compromised by political expediency.
- Advertisement -
“No valid reason has been presented for keeping this colonial institution,” Patterson said, adding that if Bustamante had believed it was permanent, he would have insisted on its deep entrenchment.
The idea for a Caribbean Court of Appeal originated from a 1970 recommendation by the Caribbean Commonwealth Bar Association and was approved by Prime Minister Hugh Shearer. In 1987, Caribbean Heads of Government, including Jamaica’s Edward Seaga, agreed to establish a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final appellate court for English-speaking Caribbean countries.
The Judicial Privy Council accepted a framework allowing the final court’s removal by a two-thirds vote in both houses, without requiring a referendum.
Patterson stressed the importance of establishing the CCJ as a court representative of Caribbean people. He highlighted Jamaica’s full financial contribution and the court’s success over ten years.
“It’s time to end the incongruity of His Majesty’s Judicial Privy Council being our final legal authority when the Monarch is no longer part of our reality,” Patterson said. “Sixty-two years after independence, Jamaica should no longer rely on an Order in Council but instead develop its own Caribbean jurisprudence.”
