“In these tiny theatres of conflict and confusion, better known as the Isles of the West Indies”, as David Rudder has aptly described it, there are always concrete and distinct occurrences that reveal a deeper ideological and philosophical crisis, among our peoples, confirming that, Bob Marley’s epitaph of “our need to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery, as none but ourselves can free our mind”, is as great a need now as when he sung it in the 1970s.
Nowhere is this more revealing than in some of the commentaries on the CCJ saga from the news outlets within the Caribbean, which, in case you have not realised, have ensured that the Caribbean people have had a full and continuous diet of sensationalism and without any attendant investigative journalism that can assist in weeding out the fact from the fiction. This is particularly important in circumstances where the judiciary within any liberal democracy must always be integrity-based, impartial, without stain, and must maintain the confidence of the people it serves if it is to remain trusted by ordinary people as a fair broker in their disputes. The court’s role is not only to dispense justice but to ensure that there is even the appearance of justice.
But it is telling that this saga has received far more coverage than the court has received for its active contributions to developing Caribbean jurisprudence over its 20 years. Certainly, the clickbait and the negative press that it will draw have been more attractive than other “boring” and “mundane” coverage of seminal judgments and other related work of the court. It has certainly not been a proverbial case of success breeding many fathers, while failures ensure the continuation of the orphanage.
As such, this piece will not focus on the alleged facts and leaked images, which point to a deeper crisis of professionalism, or on allegations shared by media outlets. If one expects a judgement call on the existing factual matrix, there is no need to continue reading, as it will not provide one. Certainly, there must be a proper ventilation of these facts, such that a determination can be made on the veracity, as it is not prudent to provide judgement without hearing the full story, in much the same way that we operate in our interpersonal relationships and friendships.
Instead, what is equally concerning to me is the immediate anti-intellectual and “anti-Caribbean” reactions of certain demographics within the Caribbean civilisation. In the first group, there are segments of the political elite, in select Caribbean countries, who, as if, have been proverbially praying for a scandal to ensue to provide them, for the first time, with a “concrete” rationale to justify their pre-existing distaste and distrust of the Caribbean Court of Justice, that was based solely on conjecture, innuendo and speculation. That it may have concretised also does not mean it is justified or was ever valid. It is as if, because it emerged from Caribbean consciousness, psyche, and creative process, it is immediately fraught with unresolvable issues and is not worthy of acceptance and use by the Caribbean people, compared with the Privy Council. Deeper than this, though, they reflect what Greg Thomas has classified as “having a profound self-hatred exceeded only by an intense loathing of the black masses on top of flagrant, idolatrous imitation and revering of whiteness, or an abject conformity to white Western ideals”.
In fact, the abovementioned could be gleaned from their reaction. “You see” was their knee-jerk reaction, not a sense of disappointment or regret, or anger that the institution that the Caribbean has worked so tirelessly to craft in their likeness and image is within this spotlight. Instead, it was a sense of “validation”, or a “sigh of relief”. This is notwithstanding that they could not have pointed to anything within the 20 years. Now, the ‘anything’ in this instance should never be read as “disagreements with the judgments” of the Court, as this is not a valid basis for rejection of the court, as the court is not there to cosy up to the political elites’ fantasies.
In fact, it provided them with the first opportunity to finally have a citation for their claims that the court was ill-equipped to provide impartial and fair justice to the Caribbean, maintaining the highest standards of judicial independence and integrity, in comparison to their preferred choice, i.e., the “incorruptible” Privy Council, that is without any skirmish on its record, as defined by it being so far removed and uninterested in the Caribbean jurisprudential project.
But what is disingenuous about their argument is not only that they never had any intention of acceding to the Court, and therefore only utilising this as a fig leaf to ground their previous nonsensical basis for non-accession, particularly in circumstances where the local judiciary and other machineries of our states have the same inbuilt risks associated with the CCJ, but are not being disbanded. But a grave conflation is being made, wherein they believe accountability and participation are mutually exclusive, rather than mutually reinforcing. As such, being part of the Court, or even not being part of the Court but utilising this moment to galvanise what further reforms should be implemented to strengthen the Court, because we collectively agree on its importance, should be the response of the Caribbean integrationist. Put another way, the true Caribbean intellect and integrationist is defined by a collective ability to first accept and appreciate our indigenous institutions, while also being committed to resolving issues that have arisen, and also being committed to rebuilding them when they have apparently betrayed their vision, purpose and objectives. Is that the standard we would apply in the future, if unfortunately, any of the regional institutions fall into disrepute? Do we abandon the institutions that we have built with our bare hands and the inspiration and courage of our ancestors at the slightest inconvenience because it is easier to chastise than to reform?
What I do agree with them on, though, albeit it has appeared in the fine print of the discussion, is that there must have been a utilisation of all alternative remedies to deal with the issues identified, in circumstances where these allegations had any merit. Clearly, there is a wave from the North that seems to inspire Caribbean politicians and other officials alike, who seek to make public information that could be shared and resolved privately, because the sustainability and longevity of the institution in the wake of these dramatic charades and clickbait seem to be of no relevance to some actors. Clearly, we need a more sober and mature way to resolve our internal issues. This is a point I made in my recent address to the CARICOM Heads of Government in Saint Lucia.
But it cannot be that there are some who are part of the political elite, who sit in the proverbial stands or bleachers in our cricket games, arguing about everything that is apparently wrong with the players on the field, without any suggestions on how they can improve their technical skill set to be better representatives of the people of the region. In some instances, by also not volunteering themselves, when they are still within the age of playing, to be part of the starting eleven, to increase the legitimacy, guardrails and safety mechanisms of the Court. Instead, they prefer to be on the proverbial outside chastising because it absolves them of any responsibility to be part of the solutions.
Coupled with the above-mentioned is the unintelligent articulation of the case for the Privy Council, by suggesting that this ordeal demonstrated the need for us to have never acceded to the CCJ in the first place. The committed regionalist knows that a skirmish on the record does not nullify an organisation’s importance or contribution; it only highlights the ongoing need for accountability and reform. In much the same way, domestically we do not throw someone into the guillotine after they have contravened the law.
Underlying this anti-intellectual statement is the view that their distance means they can dispense justice fairly and impartially, as if the court has no ideological disposition or history. Not only is it a relic of our colonial past, which we should never loiter around, but it is also almost naïve and disingenuous to ignore the CCJ’s previous successes, its efficiency and effectiveness, and how ordinary people without the financial wherewithal can access justice. Moreover, it is significant to note the number of cases that end up at the appellate level of the JCPC, and the cross-section of individuals who could continue to access the court’s benefits. Additionally, Caribbean countries have already been investing in the CCJ and should thus capitalise on that existing investment in the first instance.
But what is even more ironic about the case for a return to the Privy Council in some quarters is not only that the JCPC has already told us before to chart a different path, but that the wider body politic of the UK has imposed entry visas on some Caribbean countries. As such, imagine having to get a visa to go to the country where you have to attend court, with no guarantees that you or your lawyer would get that visa for your case to be heard? We must therefore also look inwards, albeit for different reasons, and strengthen our institutions to better serve the people of the Caribbean. It must be done as a statement of confidence in the ability, skill, passion and dignity of our own people, especially in periods of adversity.
And enveloped within the “You See”, was a quiet disdain that suggested that, because of this, we would not accede, or should not accede, as if there is an infallible institution within the world that they are waiting for, and that this would be when they would accede. It is akin to an internal colonial psychosis that suggested that our Independence should be deferred because we were “not ready”, or alternatively, suggested that our current independence is not to be treasured, and it is as if we would have been better off being dependencies or colonies of the United Kingdom or France because there have been missteps and mishaps during our period of independence.
As if there is ever a time of readiness for us to continue our decolonisation process, but also, the more technical questions of who, what, how and where would determine readiness? It is important that citizens have a critical eye on this tactic of the ever-shifting goalpost on some of these issues of decolonisation, regional integration and sovereignty, such that it is always “never the right time”, and there being no clear intention, litmus test, or considerations for what the appropriate time would look like. Instead, a false binary is always presented: putting economics before questions of justice. Appended, though, to the above-mentioned is a much deeper belief that there is no appetite for such an accession from some of the members of the political elite in some countries, but only a penchant and ability to latch onto issues from the court to solidify their lack of appetite, to which we must continually respond.
In the end, part of the calamity is that the defenders of the court and the wider Caribbean integration project must stand up and still demand accountability, while still preaching the importance of the court to ordinary people of the Caribbean. To do so, would demonstrate what Toussaint L’Ouverture suggested, that “they may have cut the branches but the roots run deep”, and that even in times of disappointment, the Caribbean people must choose themselves and their institutions, even while holding them accountable, as opposed to searching outside for some benevolent big brother or sister whom we believe will come to rescue us from the tyranny of “ourselves”. There is too much talent resident within the Caribbean for us to continually be looking upon former colonial masters for validation and to run our affairs, as if we are incapable or insufficient, even when errors are made along the way. There must not be a permitting of some to dominate the discourse, particularly in circumstances where their aim in engaging in the conversation is only to make it seem as if they were so invested in the Court when their actions have only demonstrated a lack of interest or belief in the promise of the Court and the Caribbean.
Rahym R. Augustin‑Joseph, the 2024 Rhodes Scholar for the Commonwealth Caribbean, is currently pursuing a Master of Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. He holds two First Class Honours degrees in Political Science and Law from the UWI Cave Hill Campus. An award‑winning debater, public speaker, youth leader, and advocate, Rahym is passionate about law, politics, and governance, and is committed to shaping the future of Saint Lucia and the wider Caribbean.
