Editorial | Constitutional reform in limbo

Unless the Holness administration possesses David Copperfield’s conjuring skills, it is clear that the Government’s planned reform of Jamaica’s Constitution is dead until after the general election, due next year.

Even if it could pull it off on its own, there is not sufficient time for the Government to take the process through all the required constitutional stages to transition the island from a monarchy to a republic, which would remove Britain’s King Charles as Jamaica’s head of state.

And neither does there appear to be any effort between the Government and the Opposition to resolve the latter’s insistence on twinning the ditching of the monarchy with Jamaica’s accession to the civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Further, there is no clarity on where the Government stands on the CCJ despite the promise, 10 months ago, by the constitutional affairs minister, Marlene Malahoo Forte, that Prime Minister Andrew Holness would make that known “in short order”.

DISCLOSE STRATEGY

In the circumstances, either Minister Malahoo Forte or the prime minister should disclose the Government’s strategy for clearing the logjam.

The Government announced its phased constitutional reform project a year and a half ago, with the first phase dealing with Jamaica becoming a republic.

It was clear then that the timeline tight if it were to be concluded in time for the next general election, constitutionally due by September 2025. It was known, too, that process would be fraught.

First, the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) has long insisted on replacing the UK’s Privy Council with the CCJ as Jamaica’s final court, a process that does not require a referendum. It argued that action on the court, along with the removal of the King as head of state, should be part of the initial reform package. Although it participated in the constitutional talks, the PNP has not changed its mind.

That is now a complicating factor for the Government.

But even if the administration could find a way around the PNP’s objections – say, by convincing at least one opposition senator to vote in favour of the reform bills so that there is the two-thirds majority for them to pass – time, at this point, is a serious constraint.

Indeed, all the constitutional clauses that have to be amended to remove the King and make Jamaica a republic are deeply entrenched. Having been tabled in Parliament, the bills to do so have to wait for three months before being debated. After the debate, another three months have to pass before they are voted on. Then, at least two months have to elapse (and an outside of six) before they are voted on in a referendum.

Given those timelines, any bill introduced now would not reasonably be debated until October. Passage would, at the earliest, be in January 2025. If the Government ran a tight ship, a referendum would be in March or April, by which time the country would be on a footing for the pending general election. That is another complicating factor.

It should be noted that these are best-case scenarios. These debates, given the momentous nature of the matter, are likely to be prolonged. Most, and probably all, members of parliament will want to speak on them.

In-between all of this, Parliament, not known for its hard work, will be busy with the supplementaries for the Budget for the current fiscal year. And the Government will be further distracted planning its programme for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

OUT OF THE WINDOW

The bottom line: constitutional reform, in terms of legislative action, is out the window for 2025. The project will have to be advanced by whoever forms the government after the next election.

That does not mean that nothing cannot happen before then. Efforts can proceed to narrow the gaps between the Government and the Opposition and fulsome moves made to bring Jamaicans into the conversation on constitutional reform.

A good place to start is the sticking point in the current process. The Government should be pellucid about its position on the CCJ.

It should say why it is against the CCJ, if that is still the case, a court that Jamaica helped to establish and in which it participates in the court’s original jurisdiction as interpreter of the treaty establishing the Caribbean Community. Recent opinion polls show that six in 10 Jamaicans are in favour of the regional court.

Perhaps the administration believes that Jamaica should remain with the Privy Council, the King’s court. In that case, it should say why.

Or, it may have an alternative to the CCJ and the Privy Council.

Clarity on this matter is essential for the public’s appreciation of the Government’s posture and to provide a basis for negotiation with the Opposition.

Obviously, the PNP does not trust the Government on the issue, believing that if it unlocks the CCJ from movement on the monarchy, it cannot count on the governing Jamaica Labour Party’s future support on the regional court.

The Jamaica Labour Party probably believes, however, that it can make the PNP pay a political price at elections by painting it as the party that stood in the way of the removal of the monarchy.

This newspaper, as we have long and consistently made clear, is in favour of Jamaica’s accession to the CCJ at the earliest possible time. We have thus far heard no valid or logical reasons to alter our position.