By: Capil Bissoon
February 11, 2025
Take it or leave it… Was this inference a deliberate but subtle attempt to generate palpable disrespect and cast aspersions on the professionalism and integrity of this very independent senior office holder whose actions are solely in terms of the public interest?
I am responding to a commentary in Thursday’s Express by Roy Mitchell captioned Take it or leave it.
I was taken aback when I read Mitchell posturing, “What seems determined not to pass is the UNC-led unending genuflection before the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council alluding to a matter concerning the Auditor General versus the Minister of Finance which was determined in favour of the former.”
I had to quickly do a fact check to verify just what “UNC-led unending genuflection before the PC” Mitchell was alluding to. In fact, according to the PC’s website, it was case number JCPC/2024/0057 between TT’s Auditor General, the respondent to this appeal, against the Minister of Finance and the Cabinet, referred to together as “the appellants”.
Perhaps Mitchell in his haste to “draw” the UNC into this did not understand that it was the Finance Minister and Cabinet who were genuflecting before the Privy Council in this matter because they were dissatisfied with the rulings of both the High Court and Court of Appeal.
After hearing the appellants’ submission, the PC concluded that it was unnecessary to hear submissions on behalf of the respondent and the appeal was dismissed.
Nowhere was the UNC mentioned!
Is Mitchell saying that the Auditor General, who is appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is “a representative of the Opposition UNC?”
Was this inference a deliberate but subtle attempt to generate palpable disrespect and cast aspersions on the professionalism and integrity of this very independent senior office holder whose actions are solely in terms of the public interest?
Or is it that Mitchell is saying that once a judgement is handed down against the ruling PNM Administration, the appellants or respondents are linked to the Opposition UNC?
This is political posturing to the lowest!
And then Mitchell launches into another tirade against TT retaining the Privy Council as its final court of appeal, writing that “It defies elementary intelligence that, after 63 years of independence and territorial sovereignty, the UNC leadership still holds T&T to ransom before this remote remnant of the colonial past… oh how much more socially palatable, had it been delivered, not by distant socio-economic and politically discredited former colonial overlords but by our own culturally home-grown legal luminaries right here in the heart of our capital city—namely, the Caribbean Court of Justice.”
One of the most fundamental reasons attributed by citizens to retaining the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is it remains far removed from regional and domestic policies and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relies strictly on applying only the law on all matters coming before the Judicial Committee for adjudication.
There is also the firm belief that our courts lack the public’s trust and support (including the CCJ) and may be more vulnerable to attempts by political actors to undermine judicial results and/or judgements. The CCJ remains much too close to regional and domestic politics, politicians and policies.
It is a generally held view that many of our so called independent institutions including our service commissions, the TTPS, the media and our calypsonians, the IRO, the Chambers of Commerce and the Law Associations have at very important times when needed not shown the requisite independence and detachment required in the circumstances.
Mitchell should “enlighten” himself that not only TT is under no obligation to cling to the original design, to make a clean break from “the colonial British concept” but also Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname.
Only five countries have signed on as having the CCJ as Final Court of Appeal: Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana and Saint Lucia.
The Privy Council by its judgements, declarations and development of the law has been responsible for protecting the rights of the citizens of this country more than any other institution in the history of TT. It has the reputation of being the singular protection that citizens of this country could rely upon to dispense real justice against the wrath of the PNM.
Mitchell should think carefully about the opening line of his commentary, “There is none so blind as those who will not see.”