Global Organisation of People of Indian Origin (Trinidad) condemns CCJ

by Parsuram Maharaj
President, GOPIO (Trinidad)

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Now that the Regional Judicial & Legal Service Commission (RJLSC) has finalized the appointment of the first set of judges for the Caribbean Court of Justice (which is supposed to replace the Privy Council) we wish to express our concern at the exclusion and marginalisation of the Indo-Caribbean community.

The six judges are: Michael De Labastide (President) and Rolston Nelson SC (T&T); Desiree Bernard (Guyana); Professor David Hayton (UK); Duke Pollard; Adrian Saunders (St Vincent) and Jacob Wit (Netherland Antilles). Gopio wishes to make it quite clear that our critisms are not an attack on the competance or integrity of the persons appointed.We would have been making the same point in favour of our African brothers and sisters if all the CCJ judges were objective and great Indian jurists and intellectuals.

The racial make-up of a court is important in the ‘purchase’ of public confidence. Appearances generate perceptions and are an important psychological tool in inspiring public confidence and buy-in. There is no CCJ judge of Indian origin. We find it difficult to accept that the RJLSC could not find any suitable meritorious Indo-Caribbean lawyers or judges from the Caricom countries. Former AG Glenda Morean was at pains to remind suspicious members of the Indo-Trinidadian community that in the search for CCJ judges, the net would be cast as far as the entire Commonwealth. 

Of the 6.4 million people living in the 14 member states of Caricom at least 20% are Indians. They live mainly in Guyana and Trinidad, two of the countries that will bear the heaviest part of the financial burden for the CCJ. If Indian taxpayers are financing this court why are they being excluded? We are making a fundamental change to the architecture of our justice system without catering for the single largest racial minority. This is wrong.

Indian judges and lawyers in the Commonwealth (and in particular India), have distinguished themselves as some of the finest judicial and legal minds in the world and it is difficult to understand their exclusion on the basis of merit, if not the need for the RJLSC to send the right socio-political signal about the CCJ. Did the RJLSC even advertise these vacancies in India? Did it consult the Indian Embassy for assistance in sourcing appropriate candidates? 

Surely the appointment of judges for the region’s final appellate court could not be done via simple newspaper advertisements given the specialized nature of the job. Such positions required international headhunting through appropriate HR consulting firms. How transparent was this process of selection given the clear advantage that those with political connections in the Caribbean had over their competitors from the rest of the Commonwealth? 

Certain newspapers confidently predicted these judicial appointments because of the politics involved. Prominent politicians were lobbying for certain appointees long before their names were even announced by the RJLSC. It would be naieve for us to deny this socio-political reality. Was anyone lobbying for an Indian judge? What about Lennox Deyalsingh, Mustapha Ibrahim, Wendel Kangaloo, Anthony Lucky, Sat Sharma, Carl Singh and Dr Fenton Ramsahoye? 

How does Caricom plan to accommodate the Indo-Caribbean man and woman in light of the racial solidarity and commonality of purpose among Afro-Caribbean intellectuals? One of the main justifications advanced for abolishing the Privy Council was that the foreign British Law Lords cannot fully appreciate or understand our culture and way of life. Gopio wonders whether the present set of CCJ judges solves this problem vis-à-vis the Indo-Caribbean community (how much more does a Judge from the Netherland Antilles know about Trinidad or Trinidadian Indians than the British Law Lords, we wonder). Indians also have their own separate culture and way of life and are among the most litigious in our region. Indeed, some might say that they are notorious for their endless litigation in areas such as land, family and constitutional law. 

The RJLSC should have made a point of ensuring that Indo-Caribbeans have some form of representation on the CCJ. We believe this could have been easily accomplished without sacrificing the overriding principle of meritocracy, as there are many qualified candidates in the Commonwealth, if not the region. 

‘Justice must not only be done but appear to be done’ and the RJLSC has missed a golden opportunity to make Indians feel wanted and valued by involving them in the CCJ. Instead, it has completely ignored them as a distinct racial group despite the fact that they are a majority in two major Caribbean nations (Guyana and T&T). The CCJ has gotten off to a false start and is doomed to fail because it has telegraphed the clear message that Indian intellectuals are neither needed or wanted! 

The abolition of the Privy Council and its replacement with the CCJ is a historic move with serious implications for the Indo-Caribbean population. Our history is one of constant struggle against alienation and marginalisation, for the preservation of our identity and space, in a hostile and aggressively assimilating environment. Our history of oppression and racial discrimination was never recognised by the great African Caribbean intellectuals. They remained silent in the face of Burnham’s racial oppression against Indians and 30 years of PNM rule without a single Hindu Minister of government. The voice and concerns of Indians as a group are seldom heard (far less listened to) in the rush towards Caribbean integration. 

Gopio wishes to place on record its strong opposition to the abolition of the Privy Council and its replacement by the CCJ because it is clear that this is an elite judicial institution in which there is no room for Indians. We intend to alert the international legal community to our plight by complaining to the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, the International Bar Association, the International Law Commission and Kofi Anan of the United Nations.

  Back...

  Most popular articles: viewed, printed and e-mailed

  Printable version