Constitution of Jamaica: The Backbone of Jamaica's Self-Determination

The Constitution of Jamaica was incepted with the attainment of independence and, consequently, the Jamaican Independence Act of 1962 CITATION Kel63 \l 3081 (James, 1963). With the Act in place, it enabled the provisions concerning the a fully independence of Jamaica and a status of stability in the context of countries under the Commonwealth CITATION Par12 \l 3081 (Robinson P. , 2012). Thus, the Act became the backbone of Jamaica's self-determination especially in political reasons. Moreover, the document enabled the country to design an appropriate legal system which is based on their peoples' values, norms, and political know-how with the guidance of their own morality. Despite the correlation between the Constitution and separation of powers relating to the Jamaican system, this paper intends to discuss judicial independence and applying the case the cases to bring a clear comprehension of the concept.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Therefore, the Jamaican Constitution was much of a colonial masters' relationship with the people. However, the balance of power within the various arms of government was spelled out in the Act reflecting the will of the Jamaican people and a significant framework for self-reliance. The balance of power was strategized in a way that fundamental operations of the government are facilitated to cover all the essential aspects of Jamaican governance. Moreover, the governing arms are profoundly designed, such that none is superior to the other and thus cannot manipulate the other CITATION Han15 \l 3081 (Zhou, 2015).

The principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Jamaican Constitution under the balance of powers CITATION ANT17 \l 3081 (SMELLIE, 2017). The complex interrelationship between these arms of the government provided relatively more control to the Executive with the other two arms; Judiciary and Legislature being the keepers and manager of the former governing arm CITATION Sil95 \l 3081 (Clarke, 1995). However, Judiciary remained a critical body that ensures an equilibrium is maintained as an arbiter of justice. The Principle of Separation of Power was traced to Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, between 384-322 BC. It later was widely used by Charles Louis de Montesquieu, a French writer in the 17th century. Louis asserted that the provision of an independent judiciary would be realized only if the arms of government are assigned separate and independent powers relevant to their context CITATION Han15 \l 3081 (Zhou, 2015). He argued that without which, there would be an imminent risk of absence of liberty, lack of justice, rampant violence, and oppression. Therefore, it created an atmosphere for the protection of rights and freedoms against tyranny.

Section 34 of the Constitution established Legislature consisting of the Queen, whose place was represented by the Governor-General, and two parliament houses, comprising of the senate and representatives, respectively. The power of the parliament was dictated in sections 40-50 to creates laws that promote peace, order, and good governance. Moreover, the power to decide the privileges of the houses, and procedures for changing the Constitution was also given to parliament CITATION Gor18 \l 3081 (Robinson G. , 2018). Additionally, the Governor-General heads the Executive arm in place of the Queen within the Executive is the cabinet established under section 68 and 69 responsible for the general operations of the government, and they are answerable to the parliament. Judiciary, on the other hand, was composed of the judges as and magistrates distributed in various courts. Collectively, a judicial system was formed.

Moreover, supreme courts and Court of appeal were established under sections 97 and 103, respectively CITATION Con62 \l 3081 (Constitution, 1962). The Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal are nominated the Governor after the consultation with the Prime minister and the Opposition Leader. Also, Puisne judges are appointed based on the recommendations of the Judicial Service Commission. Worth noting is an interplay among the Executive and the Parliament considering the existence of members presiding in both arms of governments. Judiciary needed to discharge their duties as an independent body.

Furthermore, the Constitution bestows the Judiciary with the right and responsibility to evaluate the policies and conduct of the other arms of governance in running their affairs within the precinct of the Constitution CITATION Con62 \l 3081 (Constitution, 1962). In its exercise of duties and power, the Judiciary can declare a law as unconstitutional, null, and void, as in the case between Julian J. Robinson, who was the claimant and the Attorney General of Jamaica as the defendantCITATION Pal19 \l 3081 (Hamilton, 2019). The contention was the National Identification and Registration Act (NIRA), in which sections of the Act were deemed to violate the rights and freedom of Mr. Julian Robinson as provided for in the Jamaican Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom and enshrined in the Constitution. The NIRA act had been approved by the Parliament on December 8, 2017, and subsequent assertion by the Governor-General. The Court, in her ruling, termed the NIRA as not only unconstitutional but also null, void with no legal effectCITATION Pal19 \l 3081 (Hamilton, 2019).

The case of Moses Hinds v The Queen provided an excellent example of Judicial independence. In the case, it was ruled that the administration of justice was based within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. In exercise of their duties and independence, the Court dismissed a case seeking the removal of the Privy Council. The Court termed the various bills seeking its removal as unconstitutional.CITATION Pri \l 3081 (Privy-Council, 1975). The case was based on the other similar case in Hinds v. The Queen CITATION Han15 \l 3081 (Zhou, 2015).

Moreover, the case of Madam Justice Levers involved a tribunal which was formed to investigate the conduct and removal of the judge in the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands. Given the case, section 49 outlines circumstances under which a judge may be ejected from the office arising from their inability to discharge duties CITATION Ano10 \l 3081 (Anonymous, 2010). The governor General held powers to constitute a tribunal to investigate and upon submission of their report act on the recommendations. Therefore, Re Levers J was placed under the inquiry of the tribunal with the accusations of issuing arrest warrants against jurors missing court appointments, decimation against females, and delivering favorable ruling on men. A completed investigation by the tribunal, it was recommended that she be terminated from her position on the grounds of misconduct CITATION Ano10 \l 3081 (Anonymous, 2010).

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous. (2010). Re Levers J. West Indian Reports, 234-278.

Clarke, S. (1995). Jamaican Constitutional Reform Issues. The University of the West Indies at Mona, 1-3.

Constitution. (1962). CARIBBEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC TERRITORIES: JAMAICA (CONSTITUTION) ORDER IN COUNCIL. Statutory Instruments, 1550(1), 20-164.

Hamilton, P. (2019). BETWEEN JULIAN J ROBINSON CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA DEFENDANT. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA, 1-309.

James, K. B. (1963). The Jamaican independence constitution of 1962. Caribbean Studies, 3(1), 18-83.

Privy-Council. (1975). Hinds and others v The Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson; Attorney General of Jamaica (intervener). Privy Council, 1-47.

Robinson, G. (2018, 02, 9). Constitution 101. Retrieved from The Gleaner: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/focus/20180211/gordon-robinson-constitution-101

Robinson, P. (2012). The monarchy, republicanism and the privy council: The enduring cry for freedom. The Round Table, 101(5), 447-454.

SMELLIE, A. (2017). THE HISTORY, MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: A CARIBBEAN PERSPECTIVE. The Caribbean in a Changing World: Surveying the Past, Mapping the Future, 1(1), 50.

Zhou, H.-R. (2015). A contextual defense of "comparative constitutional common law." Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law, 1-20.