Much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic debate. Historic for the people of St. Lucia, for the parliament of St. Lucia, for the people of our Caribbean civilization, and for me personally. And I ask Mr. Speaker that you allow me some leeway as I share the moments of personal significance of the occurrence today. I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, that we are graced with the presence of students today, and I hope that they will have the patience to listen to this debate, and it's possibly its entirety, because we're all going to be speaking to history today and it's going to be so important that history resonates not just in what we say, but also what we do, what we think, what we believe, what we practice. But let me return, Mr. Speaker, to the moment of personal significance of which I mentioned a few moments ago. And this is not really to blow any personal trumpet, but I am sometimes mystified by what we seem to have calmly forgotten our history, our past, what we have achieved, what we have not achieved, what we have done, what we have not done, all seem to disappear into the night of history. I am mindful of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second amendment to the constitution of St. Lucia, since independence 44 years ago. We have had this constitution now for 44 years, and this is the second amendment. As fate will have it, I featured in the very first amendment to this constitution, an amendment to section 25, subsection A, to reduce the age of appointment to the Senate from 30 years to 21 years. And how did this happen, Mr. Speaker? When the St. Lucia Labor Party won the General Elections of 1979, Mr. Speaker, and after the General Elections, I was approached by the then-in-common Prime Minister, Allen-Louise, at my house at Safi, near PI, preparing to return to the university to complete a master's degree. So, Allen said to me, we had a rough night last night. I said, how come? Well, we had a rough night because, you see, there was an issue about who should become Prime Minister. I said, I am saying this publicly for the first time. I said, really, why would that happen? He said, well, you know, your good friend George Adler and Peter Josie, they raised the issue of who should be Prime Minister after the General Election. And after much argument and debate, I was compelled to come to an agreement, and essentially the agreement was that I would be Prime Minister for six months. Thereafter, I will hand over the post to the deceased George Adler. That's the story. That's the real what actually happened. There was no pre-election agreement. It happened that night. And then he said to me, but there was a happier note that all of us agreed that you should become the Minister of Education of St. Lucia, and you will do so by appointment of the Senate. By then, I had some familiarity with the Constitution and said to him, listen, I can be a senator. I'm sorry, I can't take up the post because the Constitution says that to be a senator, to be appointed to the Senate, you have to be 30 and I am only at the time 28. So I couldn't be a senator. He says, well, don't worry. We want to check the Constitution out but we believe that we can amend it back to a third majority and reduce the age from 30 to 21. I then told him, I'll give it some consideration and let him know. And I accepted on the ground that I would be made a special advisor in the Ministry of Education, a de facto minister of education to supervise the Ministry of Education until such time that the amendment was made. But as faith would have it, that amendment became a victim of the warfare between Adlon and Alan-Louise. And I'm going to share with this house something else you don't know but as history calls me, I answer. And I allow you to share this information because it would also help you to understand why I have been the individual that I have been as leader of the party that all of you are members of and at one time your government. In 1980, we had a common interest examination in St. Louis and it fell to me as de facto minister at the time to allocate places in secondary schools. A minister whom I shall not name came to me and said, look, my son did not get the required pass mark to go to St. Mary's College, but you will fix a business for me and make sure that he's accepted and he enters St. Mary's College. I looked at him and said, no, I'm not doing that, I cannot do that because we have just introduced a new system of allocation of students to secondary schools based on the fairness of the common interest examination and it had to start with us. We needed to make a clear statement to the public that as ministers we would follow the rules and disavow the perception that we're all in office for ourselves and for our benefit. The minister looked at me and said to me, well, if you're not going to allow my son to go to St. Mary's College then when it comes to amending this constitution you will see my position or hear my position loud and clear. Obviously, the majority then was a 12-5 environment so that if that minister had withdrawn his support then the number would have been reduced to 11 and the possibility less than 11 and the amendment would not have carried. It took my ground. The Prime Minister came to me and said, but that's a minor matter, why don't you? I said, Sir Allen, you're a former judge, you need to support me, I can't do this, I'm not doing it, you're going to have the post and I'll go about my business. He said to me, there's no need for that, no need for that. As fate again would have it, we had this devastating hurricane, this matter was deferred and it dragged and dragged, I resigned the first time and then eventually they decided to go through with the amendment to the constitution. But by then I was 30 and there was no need for the amendment to be done for my benefit. In reality the amendment was done for the incoming generation. That is the story behind why you had that first amendment to the constitution and the age was reduced to 21. Of course if I had my way, that age would have been reduced to 18 years. So that was the first episode. Then, in this instance before us today with the Caribbean Court of Justice, you will note that the member for Castro is in his presentation referred to the fact that the agreement was signed in 2001. That tells you something. Because between 1996 and 1997 I served as general counsel at the Caricom Secretariat and had the responsibility to begin the process of preparing the draft for the agreement that was signed. In fact that draft agreement was prepared by Duke Pollard who subsequently became a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice. But it was my responsibility. I sought to that first draft, to that initial draft of what we eventually signed. Therefore always being part of the thinking, part of the fiber what makes the Caribbean Court of Justice. And today you are asking me to come to this house and suggest that I should oppose the accession to the Caribbean Court of Justice on the grounds that you need a referendum when I was one of those who was an author and part and parcel of that agreement that created that court. You have the temerity to come to me with that kind of message. And of course when I had the honor to be the prime minister of this country in 1997 Caricom assigned responsibility for justice and governance to me so I then had the responsibility to secure agreement to establish the Caribbean Court of Justice to persuade my colleagues to persuade the member states of Caricom to establish the Caribbean Court of Justice and bring it to life. That's another story, that's another episode. I don't even know if people understand why the Caribbean Court of Justice was ever established in Trinidad and Tobago when Trinidad and Tobago is not a signatory to the appellate jurisdiction of the court, very simple. The then prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago suggested that suggested to his colleagues with my support that we should allow Trinidad and Tobago to establish a court in Trinidad and Tobago if only it would help to persuade those persons in Trinidad who oppose the Caribbean Court of Justice that Trinidad and Tobago would have a valid stake in that court by the fact that the presence of the court was in Trinidad and Tobago. That's the story why it's there in Trinidad and Tobago and we bought the argument. So that's the story of that court. As you may have heard, the Caribbean Court of Justice was formally inaugurated in part of Spain on April 16, 2005 and there I had the opportunity to deliver an address as the prime minister with responsibility for governance of justice which I did under a theme, quote, leap of enlightenment. But here in St. Lucia we lost the momentum to establish the court. We lost the general election in 2006 and following our return in 2011 we resumed the efforts to establish the court. At the time, and as you know today we needed a two-thirds majority to amend the constitution but we had an 11-seat majority, it was 11 seats to 6 which if you translated it into two-thirds would have been roughly 11.33. And if you notice, the member of Acastries North is looking at me very closely because he's wondering when am I going to get to him? Yes, I'm going to get to him now. For safety's sake we determined that it was not wise to proceed on the basis of an 11-seat majority but to go to a majority of 12-5 because given that the two-thirds were the 11.33 we did not want that to be an issue to be litigated in the courts of what really constituted a minor thing like a two-thirds majority. So we played it safe. And we wanted to put the issue beyond doubt. I then engaged the member of Acastries North and at the time he was the leader of the opposition we had private discussions on the matter. I reminded him of the position of the founder of the United Workers Party Sir John Compton and former member of this House who in his public pronouncements had repeatedly said that he supported the Caribbean Court of Justice but then unfortunately a new leader was elected for the United Workers Party and the Honourable Member was exiled to the back benches. He was exiled to the back benches and the new leader of the United Workers Party made the position absolutely clear. And of course that new leader was the member for Miku South. First with that issue we then had to contend with the other issue as to whether there was any veracity in the common view that we needed a referendum. And at that stage we decided that a better approach would be to ask the Court of Appeal for an advisory opinion on whether St. Lucia needed a referendum. The Court confirmed there was no requirement for a referendum and I will certainly want to go through that issue in a few moments. Armed with the advisory opinion of the Court we wrote to the British Government whose agreement was required as explained to you by the Prime Minister and a member for Cass Trees East. An amending bill was drafted and did its first reading in Parliament but at last we did not complete the process as a general election of 2016 in the beam. Now the honour of completing this process of accession belongs to the member for Cass Trees East who achieved this remarkable majority at the general election of 2021. And it is this remarkable majority that has given us the key to unlock that door to ensure that we can complete that parliamentary process. So today, Mr Speaker, we do not speak to the assembled parliamentarians. I know they can listen if they wish to but I'm not going to speak to them. I'm sorry, I also did not intend to speak to the opposition but I hope even if they were there they might have cast their air and maybe picked up one or two things that they could have understood but I would not have been speaking to them because I know what the position is. Rather, Mr Speaker, I want to speak to the people of St. Lucia. I want to ask them to give me a listening air. I want to ask them to give me a moment of constitutional and possibly ideological indulgence. A little bit. I'm getting on in age, I'm entitled to it, Mr Speaker. I ask them to allow me to persuade them that our accession to the Caribbean Court of Justice is indeed a leap of enlightenment. Just give me a few moments to explain why I believe it is so important that we take that step and why I support the initiative to do so. In that effort, I want to do a couple of things. I want to share a little bit of the history of the Caribbean Court of Justice, a little bit of the past. I want in different terms than that of the member of the castries east to answer the question, do we need a referendum? Is the opposition correct or simply mischievous and opportunistic that it should call for a referendum? And then I want to return to a theme again addressed by the member of the castries east, the issue of expanding access to justice. Then I want also to touch on the issue of whether the Caribbean Court of Justice is truly an independent court. Again, touching on its point, but in my own style, perhaps addressing it in a different way. And I also want to address this issue of reforms to the judiciary and to handle or touch the argument that is posited that you should fix up the whole judiciary before you accede to the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice. I want to touch on that because those who make that proposal, I want to ask them, why is it from our colonial days to the days of our independence and now 44 years after the privilege council has never been able to bring any reform to the judicial system of the Caribbean? Why? What's the issue? To some extent, I have to accept that this debate is misplaced. And I want you to forgive me and listen to me carefully why I say this. Those of us who have engaged in this debate over the years, Mr. Speaker, often speak about accession in philosophical and ideological terms. We say, for example, that accession will complete our circle of independence. It will complete the repatriation of our constitution meaning that this constitution will come back to us. It will be part of our ground norm. We created it as ours. Those who see it that way. And then, of course, there are those who say that if we do this, it will affirm and express our identity as a people and civilization and it is part of that unfolding process. I have come to accept, Mr. Speaker, that while these principles are sacred to some of us, sacrosanct to some of us, these principles mean little or nothing to the citizens of our region. They are not preoccupied with issues of completing the circle of independence even though it matters so much. It matters to people like me. It matters to judicial personnel. It matters to academics. It matters to have a sense of what the Caribbean civilization should be. It matters, but rank and file for them. It is of little significance. Our people seem to me to be preoccupied with issue of access to justice, to the quality of justice, justice that is delivered by judges who are fair, independent, impartial and close in integrity. That's what they seem to be preoccupied with. You know what solutions are preoccupied with, Mr. Speaker? They are occupied with what is happening in our magistrates' courts and I am not saying anything out of turn when I say, Mr. Speaker, that's the solutions that are listening to me and listening to the rest of you. They are going to be preoccupied with why our court houses say that your court has been closed for months. The magistrates' courts have been closed for months and you can't be talking about access to justice in these matters if you don't resolve those issues because this is where, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of the justice that we speak of takes place and we have not grasped the importance and significance of that first rung of the judicial ladder, the magistracy. These are the things that our people are concerned about. The quality of justice, accessing justice, whether our justice is independent, whether they are impartial, whether they are delivered qualitatively. They are not interested in the philosophical and ideological issues, sad to say, but we are because it means my generation. It means a lot. You see, we came out of a certain kind of social matrix. We were the children of the black power movement, of black nationalism. That's where we came from. We knew what the value of an Afro was and what state made and what it meant. We knew all those things and for us it is a completion of the journey of self-identity. So for us it's a big issue. But unfortunately for the majority of people, they don't see that way. There is more immediate. There is more immediate. And I believe that part of the problem where the CCJ has been, that the debate has been misplaced, we did not explain enough to the people of our region, to the people of St. Lucia how this court by its establishment will change the issue of access to justice, the quality of justice and will make a difference in their lives. That it is not just a question of having judges, but it is also a question of having judges who understand our region, who understand the culture of the region, the people of the region, who understand what it means when somebody takes a house, builds a house on government lands because they have nowhere else to turn and the court said, well you did so, but let us look at what you did against the rights that you may have had and of course the rights of the owner of the land crown. But who understand why this is happening? I'm not going to quote Bible and verse of famous cases to you. This is not a day for that. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, let me warn you, do him a bottle look at that clock because you see today I probably will likely speak more than an hour. I believe I've earned it, Mr. Speaker. No. So Mr. Speaker, we focused on the lofty ideas regarding the establishment of the court but not the things people are concerned with and in this debate, this is where we have to go to share with them those concerns. Having said this, I want to very quickly, Mr. Speaker, touch a little bit of the history of the court. The first thing I want the people of St. Lucia to know and to understand is look, the idea of a Caribbean court to replace the Caribbean call is nothing new. In fact, it has been in existence for over 122 years. It was an idea whose seed was planted 122 years and possibly more. There's nothing new. This is not something that Caribbean governments rushed into because it was fashionable. We knew from judicial practice that we had to take that leap of faith at some point. So when you go back into our historical times, ironically, the idea first emerged in Jamaica when the Gleaner newspaper mentioned in 1901 that thinking men believe that a judicial committee has served its turn and is now out of joint with the condition of the times. 1901, in 1901, and do you know that the language that the Gleaner newspaper used, you would think that it is the language that would be said today because it resonates. They said thinking men believe that the judicial committee has served its turn and is now out of joint with the condition of the times. And this is really what you're saying. The public council is out of joint with the conditions of the times. We have grown up. We are mature people. We are confident civilisation. We have learned to manage our affairs. We have learned to make our mistakes and correct our mistakes. What more do you want of a civilisation than, Mr Speaker? We might want to say that sometime in 1970 the efforts to establish such a court assume new momentum. But the most significant development occurred in 1972 when the organisation of Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Association, established a committee to examine the issue of creating a Caribbean call of appeal to replace the Privy Council. And then, of course, that report was prepared by the esteemed jurist, the first principal of the Norman Manly Law School, Aubrey Fraser, advocating for the replacement of the judicial council with an Indigenous regional court. The next important step was, in fact, in 1989 when the idea became more firmly rooted, coming out of the Grand Anz Declaration of 1989 which established what became known as a ramfile commission. And then when that commission reported in 1992, they said in their famous report, Time for Action, quote, the case for a caracom supreme court with both a general appellate jurisdiction and an original one is now overwhelming. Indeed, it is fundamental to the process of integration. And that's, apart from history, the second most powerful reason. But if we wanted to support Caribbean integration, then we had to establish a regional court to underpin the existence of integration. And as you can see, the benefits have already begun to flow. From then, it was a matter of giving the direction of which I spoke. 1992, reports took its time to be circulated, to be shared. 1996, 1997, my own arrival at the caracom secretariat and the finalization of the preliminary draft of this agreement, this international agreement, this treaty to establish a court. And that is a synopsis. There is so much more now. You will understand therefore why I say to you today that for me this has a lot of personal significance. I'm going to back you up, Mr. Speaker, that most of them are on this table. They're not aware of the history that I speak. They may have sat around the table and made decisions, but they're not aware of that history. They're not even aware how intimately I was involved in that process. Well, don't forget the people's intuition. And so if I speak in emotive terms, if I speak with renewed vigor and spirit, it is only because as I prepare to signal my departure at the appropriate time, I am dealing with an issue that resonates with me, an issue of immense personal significance. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, and the member of Kastruzi said it. I don't know why we doubt ourselves. I don't know why we doubt our abilities, our intellect, our competence and brilliance. I don't know why we want to teach the children who are here, the students who are here today that we are not some of the brightest people around in this world. I don't know why in the region we have this tension, this capacity to devalue ourselves. You can't tell me anybody from Oxford is better than me. We have to stop this nonsense. We have to stop this nonsense. And it is not a statement of my bigotry that I'm as good as I'm only pointing out that we have to stop it. And we need to understand that we are special people in our region. We are gifts. We have gifts. We must celebrate what we have. I'm going to come to that in a few minutes. You know, recently I had the unfortunate moment to read that Peter Mencher was dead. Which wasn't true. It was actually fake news. Real fake news. And Peter Mencher quickly came out and said, that's not so. But you know, forget for a moment, our Derek Walcott and Sir Arthur Lewis. And you heard the brilliant lecture delivered by the provost chancellor of the University of West Indies. Not everything he said I agree with, by the way. I have my differences with what he says. And his interpretation of certain things, there will always be differences. But he was making the point of that very special place that we have in the region. And we doubt ourselves because we don't appreciate and we don't know what we have created. And I'm going to remind you because the Prime Minister of the member for Castro is touched on it. But we need to be reminded ourselves of some of the accomplishments that we have had because you see, we lawyers, we don't have a way we celebrate what we do, you know. We celebrate what we do by the cases we win in court and whether we get a good judgment or bad judgment. But sometimes we don't fully appreciate what we have. I had to remind a member for Castro is this, when he mentioned Sir Daniel Alexander that he was the first Chief Justice of an independent Nigeria. He was a sedution. And you know where he came from? He came from Souffre. That's where he came from. That's where he came from. When the African countries wanted persons to head their judiciaries, they turned to Caribbean lawyers to head their judiciary and to guide them in their post-independence period. Caribbean lawyers filled the office of such a justice of Kenya, of Nigeria and of Zimbabwe. I spoke up suddenly, but of course, the brilliant Telford Georges, my dear friend Telford Georges, who when he left the Court of Appeal and trained Adam DeBago, found himself in Africa to be Chief Justice. Indeed, the leaders of the bar in this region have long been the professionals of choice throughout the Caribbean, as of course they continue to be. And where senior lawyers have held some of the highest judicial offices in the world, we provided a judge to the world's most senior judicial body, the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The Caribbean National was there. Where senior lawyers were Chairman of the International Tribunal on the law of the scene, Hamburg. Our region provided judges to the Yugoslav and Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal. Our venerable former Chief Justice and former president of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Sir Dennis Byron, was head of that tribunal in Rwanda. We have held the chairmanship of the Inter-American Judicial Tribunal. And now we have the distinction of providing one of the first judges of the International Criminal Court. Let me tell you, we have a habit when we evaluate their work, we say we have the highest per capita of Nobel Prize winners in our country. But let me tell you something, you don't know. In per capita terms, I doubt if any other community in the world had served the world's wide cause of justice more comprehensively and more consistently than the Caribbean. I doubt it. No civilisation has had so much influence on the dispensation of justice in the world than Caribbean jurists and Caribbean lawyers. I stand by that. I stand by it. No comment tell me about Priviconso goes to be final appellate. That was under jurist. That was under jurist. The Priviconso operated under the umbrella of colonialism. They were an instrument of colonialism. They implemented the colonial agenda.  Because make no mistake that that Priviconso is about implementing the imperial agenda and the ideological agenda of the British government. Make no mistake about that. You know why hanging is a problem in the Caribbean? Hanging is an issue in the Caribbean. Every opportunity that the Priviconso gets to repudiate a hanging in the Caribbean a sentence of hanging it takes that opportunity and finds some reason to overturn the judgement of a Caribbean court. Why? Because the British government has taken an ideological position that hanging will no longer be tolerated and the Priviconso has been instrument to implement that philosophy now. This is where I disagree with the judges in the Caribbean. Because they allow themselves to be blinded by something called we lawyers called precedent and apply the precedence created by the Priviconso. But the president the reasoning of the Priviconso in those cases is nothing more than ideological. It is implementing the agenda of the Europeans and of the British. That's what it is. That is what it has been. All along. All along.  That's in our nature, we recoil.  That's the kind of thing that I mean. That's calling a spade a spade. So Mr. Speaker let us be very clear ourselves. There's no need to doubt ourselves Mr. Speaker. Against that background Mr. Speaker I now want to come to this referendum question and ask whether we need a referendum. Do we need a referendum? No, it sounds good doesn't it? Remember for Casterity he said it well, it sounds good. Consult the people. Head their views. You have a referendum. Consult the people you are exceeding to democracy. So I want to ask if that is the case why then you have created a constitution that allows you to amend some sections in your constitution by a specified majority whether it's two-thirds or three-quarters but yet in some of those sections you say that you must go to the people of the country and get a referendum and not just a referendum but a specified percentage of votes before you can amend this constitution. It is clear that our constitution or the framers of our constitution understood that there were some provisions in this constitution that did not need a referendum but there are others because of their importance their significance it had to go to the people to make a final decision. That's the nature of the constitution we have. The tragedy is that very few provisions in this constitution can be amended by a two-thirds majority as we are doing today. The vast majority require significant engagement of the public. So this constitution actually ensures that people are part of the lawmaking process when it comes to amending our constitution, that's what we have. And by the way for those of you who are Anglophiles by the way that's not what a British constitution says the British constitution hardly know about the thing called referendum you know. It's not enshrined nothing is enshrined in the British constitution although you might want to argue that Bill of Rights, the UK Bill of Rights is somewhat entrenched they don't have a written constitution you know. They put us through all of this because they felt that we can't handle ourselves we couldn't trust ourselves. That's the bottom line you know. And you're so faithful to the untruth that the British decrease us that we ourselves believe in it too. Now you must trust yourself you better go and trust the Englishman. That's where we are that's the reality that we have that's the reality that we have but Mr Speaker every government in the Caribbean that has had a referendum in obedience to their constitution has run into trouble. Everyone, Antigua got into trouble Greta got into trouble Saint Vincent got in trouble and the Bahamas got in trouble let me tell you how perverse it was in the Bahamas. Do you know Mr Speaker that in the Bahamas the Bahamian man can marry an outsider and that outsider is entitled to citizenship under the Bahamian constitution. The Bahamian woman on the other hand if she marries a man from outside now you understand why the Bahamian women don't like to marry people from the rest of the region if she marries a man from outside that man is not entitled to citizenship Do you understand what I'm saying? Now a very patriotic, bright, sharp Prime Minister, dear friend of mine decided that couldn't be right and since they were in the era of clamoring for the rights of women he would go to the electorate he would propose an amendment to the Bahamian constitution and ask the Bahamian people to vote in a referendum as prescribed by the constitution to make it to equalize the treatment of women in the Bahamian constitution to give women the same rights that men in the Bahamas have you know what happened when he went to the constitution he lost it you would not imagine that the people of the Bahamas so enlightened that in this day and age they get an opportunity to amend the constitution to treat women equally like men and they turn it on and you must have had women in the Bahamas who also turned it on and you know why because they became the victim of the ignorance of the politics that we have because instead of voting on the virtues and benefits of the referendum what they went to do was to vote against the government because they don't like the government that's what has happened in all of these islands and unless, mark my words unless you do not get agreement between an opposition and a government to amend those deeply entrenched provisions in this constitution we're not going to get anywhere I mean there was one country and there are some countries who have life easier Barbados can amend this constitution easily they don't have no referendum requirements trade out is another that can amend this constitution fairly easy in Jamaica they amended their bill of rights and created a new bill of rights patterning it against the bill of rights in Canada because because their constitution was no was much more facilitated that's the reason why so referendum not tools to play with what the opposition really wants is to go for a referendum waste a pile of money going up and down the country shouting and screaming talking about the usual things that's what they want you know it's political embarrassment and political mischief because if you really go for a referendum of what they want what the chronometer is saying about the government that says what do you want because of mischief but you know what you cannot on the one hand claim that you are faithful to the constitution you respect the constitution and then on the other hand what you are doing effectively is to try to denature the constitution violate the very same constitution by imposing a requirement that is not imposed that's what you are doing you have no respect for the constitution if you cannot appoint a deputy speaker for five years how can you come to me and claim your respect in the constitution you want referendum how can you do that and why should anybody believe you why should anybody believe you you create a precedent and there is one lesson I have learned a prime minister succeeding prime minister is better understand let me tell you something a constitution can never be a complete document it can never anticipate all the problems you will have a constitution are just bones some might have more bones than others because they have more detail you will meet situations in public life that you never dreamed of or you never thought possible and a constitution will have no answers but you know what you know how we deal with it as our society develops as we become more sophisticated as our politics evolves we try to create certain conventions and practices to fill in the gaps we are young nation 44 years old I was around when independence occurred in 79 I was around we are young nation we are hard on ourselves we don't understand that we are evolving we will not get it right all the time we will make mistakes but we can't afford to be as hard on ourselves because say what they will what they will we have been able to govern and manage ourselves notwithstanding all the problems we have had we have done it we have done it yes we have problems we have issues but one thing I have learned is this when I look back at the last couple years and what happened with the tenure the last government what are you going to do parliament in the past Mr Speaker and I noticed I haven't called your name for a while Mr Speaker when we introduced legislation sometimes I acted in the belief which turned out to be wrong and naive that my successor would understand that certain legislative postures were adopted and that in turn having come to power will respect what was created and applied whether we want to admit it or not that was an important lesson from the tenure of John Compton Sir John Compton and he applied it in the context of the deputy speaker when you see the Labour Party agreed after the debacle of 79 after they were almost annihilated politically to accept the deputy speaker position in those days it was understood between the two that it was an agreement between the parties when we lost the general election of 2006 he sent the member of the castries north to me and asked me whether I would accept or would agree to one of my members in deputy speaker and I told him I will have none of it why because in the face of that victory I needed to protect my six members to be sure that we can deliver the punches we needed to deliver but you know what he did he promptly resolved it by appointing one of his elected members as deputy speaker and that didn't stop the relationship talking to each other never did because you see you act on the basis that there are conventions that fill in gaps in your political practice and so you are going to rely on those conventions now I had expected that the Honourable Member for Miku South would have understood that and would have dealt with the deputy speaker situation because you know why you know why because it is important for the people of the country to see that you are being faithful to the constitution which they accepted you govern them that's why you do those things it doesn't have political benefits like it will necessarily when you vote but what it does it maintains the sanctity of your fundamental document the document you say that governs your life that's what it is but I'm happy that there will be an amendment and I would want to give meaning to this when it is convenient at that time we now come to this matter of this referendum Member for Viewport South you have 10 minutes left No Mr Speaker I'm certain that our members would agree that I deserve an hour and possibly more but I'll take an hour Member for Henry North Mr Speaker, permit me to invoke 42210 in the Standing Orders to allow the Honorable Member for Viewport South an additional 30 minutes within which to complete this presentation Do you want to? Do you want? Okay Mr Speaker Correction Permit me to suspend 4228 to allow the Parliamentary Representative for Viewport South an additional hour within which to complete his presentation on the bill before the House Honorable Member the question is that Standing Order 328 be suspended to allow the member for Viewport South an additional 60 minutes in which to complete this presentation and I'll put a question as many as that opinion say aye as many as of a country opinion say no leave his granted proceed member Thank you Mr Speaker Thank you very very much I had to extract that from the member for Henry North but never mind Mr Speaker Now Mr Speaker I'll turn to the question do we need a referendum As I said earlier this matter has bedeviled our efforts and the government which I led out of deference to the minority who insisted decided to put the matter to the court albeit for an advisory opinion and we know that an advisory opinion is not a binding decision of the court it is not the process of deliberation of litigation before the court it only offers an indication of how a court is likely to rule and I really want to commend to everybody in this House to read the advisory opinion of the Court of Appeal but I want to start by saying to the people of the Constitution that as much as we may criticize the frimmers of our Constitution nevertheless nevertheless it was very clear that the frimmers of our Constitution knew that the time would come when we would have had to sever links to the previous Council they knew that and they reflected it in this document and I want you to look at a particular section we'll be talking about section 41.7 section 8 now just look at it for a minute 41 right first in section 46 it says how you must amend the Constitution for those deeply entrenched provisions the ones where you require like a three quarters majority and a referendum it says that you must have those specified majorities and you will have to have a referendum if you touch those sections like for example the section dealing with your fundamental rights freedom of association freedom of expression etc then it goes on to say in subsection 7 the provision of paragraph B of subsection 6 of the section shall not apply in relation to any bill to alter saying that the provision to have specified majorities to alter a change the deeply entrenched provisions of the Constitution like the establishment of courts your fundamental rights etc establishment of the House of Assembly etc and you require specified majorities and a referendum but in this instance specified under 41.7 you do not need that it says the provisions of paragraph B of subsection 6 of this section shall not apply in relation to any bill to alter and says section 107 of the Constitution in order to give effect to any agreement between Saint Lucia and the United Kingdom concerning appeals from any court having jurisdiction in Saint Lucia to Her Majesty in Council what on earth does it mean it simply means it simply means that this requirement for you to have a specified majority and to have a referendum for the deeply entrenched provisions of the Constitution does not apply in the case where you have an agreement with the British government and you enter into an international agreement and of course where you deal with the matter of appeals to Her Majesty in Council it says I am going to repeat it section 107 of this Constitution in order to give effect to any agreement between Saint Lucia and the United Kingdom concerning appeals from any court having jurisdiction in Saint Lucia to Her Majesty in Council so you do not need to satisfy those earlier requirements about referendum about specified majority if you are dealing with an agreement regarding those appeals that go to the Privy Council, Her Majesty in Council so what referendum you talk to me about when you established the Caribbean Court of Justice it was an agreement it was an international agreement why do you have to write to Her Majesty the government but it is not Her Majesty the king's government is this why you have to write to the king about your decision and your constitution because it is in fulfillment of that requirement that you have entered into an agreement an international agreement, a treaty and you are saying to the king's government we are ready to proceed and we need your concurrence and of course the member of Her Majesty gave you the responsibility so the framers were clearly understood but you know what I find particularly fascinating Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker look at this you know what I find fascinating Mr. Speaker somehow somebody knew and understood that somewhere in time in history that it may be possible to secure an agreement between some governments governments in the region you understand Mr. Speaker to establish a court to replace the privilege council I am certain that is what at the back of their minds now but then clear as this is you still have problems so we go to the advisory opinion and then of course that section 41 which is a big issue of the truth when the talk of exceeding to the Caribbean Court of Justice came around obviously we looked at all the Caribbean constitutions to see what they had that we see as constitutions Dominica, Grenadiers and kids and then we noticed that the commonwealth of Dominica had proceeded to the Caribbean Court of Justice and its constitution had a nearly similar provision to ours so the question arose why Dominica are not St. Lucia if the provisions in law is here in paramaterial almost identical but why them are not us now just to explain to you I am going to read the Dominica provision and read the St. Lucia provision so you can understand this thing a little better don't let them bamboozle you there don't let them bamboozle you don't let them bamboozle you now St. Lucia first St. Lucia 41 section 41, subsection 7, subsection 8 the provisions of paragraph B of subsection 6 of this section shall not apply in relation to any bill to alter section 7 of this constitution in order to give effect to any agreement between St. Lucia and the United Kingdom concerning appeals from any court having jurisdiction in St. Lucia to Her Majesty the Council this is St. Lucia Dominica now and I am looking at Dominica section 42 subsection 4A that is the equivalent it says the provisions of this paragraph B of subsection 3 of this section shall not apply in relation to any bill to alter section 106 of this constitution in order to give effect to any agreement between Dominica and the United Kingdom concerning appeals from any court having jurisdiction in Dominica to the judicial committee now if my students were sitting out there sharp enough sharp enough they might pick up they might pick up the little difference although they might need the aid of the constitution difference is this the section in the Dominica constitution to which reference is made that section 106 of the constitution of Dominica is not the same section that the constitution of St. Lucia refers to section 106 of the constitution of Dominica is referring to appeals from the court of appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council so in the Dominica case the reference section was to appeals to the Privy Council so the Dominica constitution made it absolutely clear that the agreement you are talking about has to be in the context of dealing with the issue of appeals to the Privy Council that's the first limit don't let them bump who will you I tell you now St. Lucia and what was the problem let's go back St. Lucia says the provisions of paragraph 6 of this section shall not be applied in relation to any bill to alter section 1 of 7 of this constitution in order to give effect to St. Lucia and the United Kingdom concerning appeals from any court having jurisdiction in St. Lucia to a majesty council now when you take the St. Lucia constitution and we now go to section 107 listen to what section 107 says and this is where the problem lies and this is where the problem lies section 107 says subject to the provisions of section 398 of this constitution you shall lie from decisions of the High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation of this constitution final decisions given in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by section 16 of this constitution which relates to the enforcement of the fundamental right and such other cases as may be described by Parliament in other words when Dominica is directing us to where the agreement should be with a majesty to the link that is to the private council in our case it is directing us to the decisions of the Court of Appeal but who wants to change the structure of a Court of Appeal a structure that is entrenched by agreement you can't do that yes Parliament can prescribe can certainly prescribe establishment of courts so the question then became that if there is a variation in that the reference in Sedlucia was different from Dominica then was there an error no you know us in the region you know us in the region white man can't make mistakes you know I'm sorry for sounding that way but we believe because you see white men in England they will draft this constitution and so on they tell you I'm outrageous I'm being racist you know me already I always say I'm talking about all kinds of nonsense since this constitution was drafted by the colonial office mainly with the input of local politicians they will tell you they can't make mistakes we don't want to make a mistake that's them but the reality is that it was a mistake because there is one other constitution like it which is similarly worded and that is the constitution of the federation of St. Christopher and Nevers and the reference which I shall not bother to go through with you today the reference in this constitution despite the differences the reference is identical to the Dominica constitution and the court said they are fortified in their view that it was a mistake in the case of the constitution of St. Louis so the question to be settled in St. Louis that is why we need to have respect for the decision of the court the question is whether there was a mistake in the constitution and I'm now going to turn to the judgment of the court very briefly in the majority opinion of the the court and they put the question very well in fact I'm going to read it out to you the question was whether the reference in section 41 section 7a of the constitution should properly be to section 108 instead of section 107 and section 108 is what governs appeals to the previous council if yes was the reference to 107 an error and the Chief Justice again put it differently the question may essentially be stated thus is the reference to section 107 in section 41 7a of the constitution instead of 108 an error that is a typographical or printing error which should be corrected or does the section read as a framers of the constitution intended that's how the Chief Justice put it no we decided as I said earlier to refer the matter for an advisory opinion and I want to just remind the public of who appeared before the court it says Queens council appeared on behalf of some members of the Saint Lucia Bar Association who put forward a legal opinion given by Dr. Lloyd Barnett prepared as a request of the Saint Lucia Bar Association council on behalf of the other members of the Saint Lucia Bar Association council on behalf of the leader of the opposition in Saint Lucia so you see the leader of the opposition at the time was represented also present at the hearing was Mr. Richard Williams Attorney-at-law attending the proceedings on behalf of the Attorney-General of St. Vincent the Grenadines whose constitution is said to contain a similar reference as section 47a of the Saint Lucia Constitution now there's a story about Lloyd Barnett the Eminent Caribbean because the Bar Association had him give Lloyd Barnett to give an opinion as to whether there was an error Lloyd Barnett is famous he's distinguished he wrote one of the first constitutional treaties of Caribbean constitution the constitution of Jamaica and he had an incredible history in the courts of Jamaica do you know Lloyd Barnett told the Bar Association that he agrees that there was an error in the constitution distinguished council you know told the very persons who recruited him to go and argue for them that he told them there was an error and the judge makes reference to this to this subsequently now the courts concluded in really prominent language that there was an error in our constitution and this is what the Chief Justice said in paragraph 27 and I want to read it to you to put it on the record because this debate is too important not to read those things into the record and we need to do so today this is what the judge said the provisions of the Supreme Court order entrench in section 41 subsection 6b do not deal with appeals of the previous council any court in St Lucia it is therefore inconceivable as to what agreement could possibly be contemplated between St Lucia and the United Kingdom regarding appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal which is what section 107 concerns that I tried to explain earlier which would somehow concern appeals from any court in St Lucia to the previous council section 107 and 417a in my view makes no sense whatsoever and leads to an absurdity in construing this provision will not you hear a judge use such language judges don't use language like that yes true they talk about manifest absurdity but that's rare a judge is saying that a provision in a constitution is absurd it leads to an absurdity section 107 bears no rational connection to appeals of the previous council and similarly an alteration of section 107 to give effect to an agreement between St Lucia and the UK concerning appeals to the previous council from a court in St Lucia is simply in my view nonsensical on section 107 simply does not deal with such appeals you think a judge would put a neck on a block and make a statement like that unless he was not absolutely convinced of what he was writing I don't even think Chief Justice Baron could have put it more eloquently and more directly than that I don't think so his language is different it's a different quality of erudition I want people to understand what Sir Shasne is saying what the leader of the opposition is saying now you need a referendum the constitution prescribes the referendum so you must have a referendum and I hope I am taking them through in the simplest way that I can to explain this and why Chief Justice has to say this and I know what the response is going to be to be Chief Justice they have to go to the previous council I don't know what the previous council will say the same thing but I'll come to that in a few minutes and the court concluded that there was an error in our constitution and if you then as I said read paragraph 27 and proceeds to answer all the questions put before the court and again for history I'm going to read paragraph 41 of that judgment of that decision so and these are the questions the court was asked to answer Mr. Speaker question one whether the reference in section 47 of the constitution should properly be to section 108 instead of 107 if yes was a reference to 107 an error answer yes if the answer to question one is yes whether the error may be judicially corrected merely upon the determination of this application or by an application by the attorney general to a judge of the high court or must the error be corrected by an alteration to the constitution answer yes the constitution ought to be read and construed as this section 107 in section 41 subsection 7 subsection 8 were deleted and section 108 substituted there is no need for further application to the high court which in any event has no jurisdiction to determine the question for an order the power to interpret such a question having been given by the parliament to the court of appeal by virtue of the act question three the final one is yes whether the agreement established in the caribbean court of justice signed on February 14th, 2001 and ratified by said Lucia on July 5th, 2002 and enacted into the laws of said Lucia as a caribbean court of justice agreement act number 34 of 2003 constitutes an international agreement to which said Lucia is a party for the provisions for the purpose of the provisions section 41 subsection 7 subsection B the answer is yes the answer to question one and two is yes whether for the purpose of an alteration of the constitution to replace appeals to a majesty in council with appeals to the caribbean court of justice the agreement between said Lucia and the United Kingdom reference in section 41 subsection 7a may validly be entered into by St Lucia alone or in common or other states of the organization of the caribbean state which may have similar constitutional provisions may validly be entered into prior to the passage of the bill referred to in subsection 41 and 2 yes such an agreement must predate the presentation of the bill to alter the constitution to give effect to the agreement and here we have it that was the process that is the logic that is explanation why we need no referendum because our constitution did not contemplate any referendum but there are other important issues and a member of castries was heavy on the point of access and I too want to say a few words about this we can talk all we want about justice about the rule of law and what the value of justice is but you know unless citizens enjoy the protection of the law which of course translates into unimpeded access to the courts it can never be just alright they can never ever get the full benefit the fruits of justice they will not get it access to the courts become critical and the point is clear this is this thing has continued for too long it can never be just alright that access to justice is only for those who cannot afford it it can't be rights that's why I will quarrel when my courts in view for the close for months it can't be rights it cannot be because access to justice is critical and in our judicial system there are three tiers we have a magistrate court and if you prefer a high court although a high court has different rejection of magistrates court the court of appeal and the privilege council when you go to the magistrates court you are entitled of course to appeal whatever decision it gives you go to the court of appeal if you want when you go to the high court you are entitled to appeal from the high court to the court of appeal but then of course from the court of appeal then you are entitled to appeal to the privilege council East is right. We have thousands of cases being filed every day in this country. How many of these cases, widely aware to the previous council, in the last 20 years, as you rightly said, we have roughly had 17 appeals in 20 years, and you really tell me that they're not ordinary solutions who won their cases, heard a third time by a third court to determine whether their issue was that with fairly unjustly at a court of appeal or a high court? But you know what? What? They can't get there. They can't get there. You will believe that you think that I have no right to appeal to the people because I have no reason to appeal to the people council? Like the member for castries, the issue has always been cost. And it's no joke, it's no joke. Most importantly these days, most importantly these days, we can follow the Liberations by Zoom, as I'll tell you in a few minutes, and look at some of the costs to file for an interlocktery matter. In other words, a matter to interpret the rules of the, whether you follow the form, the proper procedure to put it simply. In the UK, 700 pounds, and you're talking of almost 3,000 dollars. If you're filing an appeal that involves damages, monetary damages, no, you have to find about 5,200 pounds immediately. And if you're going to engage an English solicitor or barrister, whatever, to go before the Premier Council for an hour or two, just in a matter to six leave, for example, if it's not paper leave, know that you have to find 2,500 pounds, which purpose in St. Lucia can find 2,500 pounds. Now, don't come and tell me that in the case of criminal cases, they get appeals done freely, because I have told you why that is done in the UK. A lot of that is done in the UK. Not because maybe they are decent lawyers in the UK that believe in human rights, but also because it fulfills and sustains the agenda of the Premier Council to abolish hanging in these islands.  And you can't persuade me otherwise, you know.  Talk to St. Lucia's who have had recent cases before the Premier Council, ask them how much they have had to foot for the bills. And you know the system in the UK is divided between solicitors and barristers. Solicitors, of course, are the ones who do the initial leg work, the administrative arrangement and so on, and brief the barristers, etc. The barristers do the actual argument. Most importantly, we don't like that in St. Lucia. Our lawyers do both the work of solicitors and barristers, although you have to be careful what hat you wear when. The solicitors fees in the UK for filing and I'm engaging in the administrative management of a matter will cost you between $65,000 to $75,000. Appearances by barristers are upwards of $100,000. So, Mr. Speaker, what you put your light on for who in St. Lucia, Mr. Speaker, would be able to pay for this kind of money, pay this kind of money. Now contrast this, Mr. Speaker, with costs at the Caribbean Court of Justice. Filing fees are divided into two categories, namely applications for what we call special leave, if you have problems with leave, if leave is refused by your own court, or LP is out of right. An appeal for special leave to the CCJ will cost you US dollars to $250. For civil cases, and I like that, that consumes less than a thousand pages. If you want to file a case and you're going to file a thousand pages, the filing fee is US $250, Mr. Speaker. For a civil appeal that consumes more than a thousand, but less than 2000 pages, the filing fee is US dollars, $750. For a civil appeal that consumes more than 2000 pages, the filing fee payable is US $1,200. In effect, no litigant will ever pay more than US dollars, $1,200, if special leave was necessary, and US $250, if special leave was necessary. In filing fees, the CCJ, this is irrespective of the amount of money involved in the litigation. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, no fees are paid in criminal matters. And let me add, Mr. Speaker, every applicant for special leave or every appellant is entitled under the rules to apply for waiver fees. There's a rule, 1018, in the rules of procedure, that allows the CCJ to completely waive all filing fees for a poor person who has an arguable ground of appeal. The rules set out a criteria for determining who is to be regarded as a poor person. That's the reality, Mr. Speaker. And I am confident that the day the CCJ is the final call of appeal, we will begin to see a rush to seek judgment by St. Lucians in a way they were never able to do under the previous counsel. And you are trying to tell me that St. Lucians don't deserve this, don't deserve the right to find out whether their courts below have made the right decisions. And they tell you that it's a creature of politicians. And you know what is most perverse? It is a UWI trained cabal that set up the court and that is in league with the court. Now, I take deep offense to that. I take deep offense to that. I am a UWI graduate. And I have two degrees from UWI with first class honors. And I'm as good as any student anywhere in the world. You can't be telling me nonsense. UWI is far better than many universities in Canada and the United States. Why do you believe they're number five universities in the hemisphere?  And I feel you can contaminate me and devalue me because I have to. I've been university in the UK. I did the bar in the UK. I know what it takes. I did my PhD and I did the bar together in two years. Two, three years.  And I would say this because I know Mr. Speaker, time is having a way. I will say this, Mr. Speaker. No community of nations in the world today has taken steps to ensure the integrity of a court that it has established, then the carry on nation states. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Don't come to mention to me about United States. I'm coming there. Don't come to me and tell me about the United States or Canada. I'm coming there, you know, or the UK. You see, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you. The member of the castries has told you no government can hold a procedure to ransom because we established what you call a trust fund. The governments borrowed $100 million to finance the court and the court has been financed from the earnings of the trust fund. So no government can say, if you don't do my bidding, I'm not, I'm not going to fund the court as has happened in the region. I admitted it has happened, Mr. Speaker. Their government told guilty of that, you know, in our region. And they had to be taught a lesson. They had to be taught a lesson, Mr. Speaker. And I'll come to that in a few minutes. Secondly, the member of castries is for the independence of the courts. The mechanism for appointing judges. The judges have regional Judicial Legal Services Commission. No politician has access to that. Even though we may be quietly disgruntled with the decisions of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission. I have seen them make choices and I disagree with their choices, but I'm not going to berate the court for that or lose confidence because of that. Nonsense. And I want you to tell them compare and compare. Today, has been a case of independence in the United States. Judges to the Supreme Court in the US are selected by the Senate, a political body. And today in the United States, their democracy is facing pressure. Could possibly implode internally. Why?  That's how it exists in the Caribbean. And when I tell you we sell our country short, it is things like that that I remember that we don't even know and understand our inheritance, our democracy. Now look at the United Kingdom. You had to tell you about the Privy Council and how the Privy Council is distant and they did not know that until until now the judges of the Privy Council are the same judges in the House of Lords and the House of Lords was the second legislative chamber in the United Kingdom that they sat in the House of Lords just like other Lords who are appointed by political parties. That's why they call it the House of Lords. No political connection do you want from that? But you know it was on the Bled. Now Bled did something very interesting. This is bigger. Bled did something very interesting. Bled turned around when he realized what was happening, he then established a supreme court. And you know where he took the inspiration from? He took the inspiration from these constitutions in our region and the constitutions handed down to African countries to establish a supreme court to try to make it independent and change the method of appointment to judges. You come and tell me about political. The only point of interaction comes when the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice has to be appointed and the procedure is clear. The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission they invite applications, they assess the applications and they make a recommendation because somebody has to appoint the President of the Court. And to this day every recommendation the Judicial Regional Judicial Legal Services Commission has made the governments have gone along. They've never questioned that information. Really the appointment by the heads of the government of the President of the Court is nothing more than a sort of a little convention, more than anything else, to signal appointment. So what are you talking about political interference? I'll tell you this. When I served as head of department of the Faculty of Law I participated in training many graduates of the University of the West Indies in law. I'm very proud of what we produced and today I see many of them are judges in our region. Different parts of the world. I'll tell you, another sadness for me is that when I see them I can't talk to them. They're my ex-students. She's Justice Rawlings, former Chief Justice Rawlings sat in my class at Cable. I can't talk to him. When I see him, hi, hello. Because of the respect of the reverence, your judge, and it is this service that continues. Another close, Mr Speaker. This argument about fixing the judiciary before going to the CCJ, only needs to be stated to be rejected. Why, Mr Speaker? Privy Council has been around all this time. What impact has the Privy Council had on the quality of the justice in the region apart from rendering appeals? What reforms can you say you can direct to the Privy Council? All the Privy Council has done sometimes is interpret our constitution to do the ideological bidding. Or not tackle the problems that you have in the law judiciary, Mr Speaker. How on earth, how on earth you're going to stay and retain the Privy Council to tackle those problems? What is the special thing about the Privy Council should be around when you tackle your problems? It is our feeling over the years and we have not followed in our case the example of the former labor government to bring changes to the judiciary and we must. We are the ones for goodness sake that establish a criminal jurisdiction of the high court and all the changes that exist, the evidence act, etc. We are the ones who did so and we need to continue bringing changes to the court. This business and I come back to that the people in my constituency cannot get access because of the problem with the magistrate courts. That should not exist! We're different! Now let me conclude. Do I say anything to this speaker? This is fair of the Caribbean Court of Justice and politicians. This is fair Mr Speaker. You know Mr Speaker, I am so very proud of the Caribbean Court of Justice and whatever complex you're from. You see every politician around this table should have a mortal fear of the direction that the jurisdiction of the court is taking in respect of the accountability of politicians and there are two cases that I want to mention very briefly but I know I don't have the time to go through them with the detail that I need Mr Speaker. I do Mr Speaker, you're generous, then I will proceed And therein now Mr Speaker. Yes, you have a lot of door to blow. There now Mr Speaker, the CARICOM Treaty exists to give us certain rights. We have expanded our rights as citizens of our country and as citizens of the region. Now it is a right that we don't understand. That's not explained to us and it isn't because I see the venerable president of the CCJ here or the former Chief Justice of the OECS Court. But one of the most important decisions that was ever given by the court was a decision in a case called MIRI, where a Jamaican national who had traveled to Barbados was unlawfully detained and searched at the airport in Barbados and the court said you cannot do that under the CARICOM Treaty. You are wrong that she's entitled to the rights conferred by the treaty. It was a path-breaking decision and since then we have had a free tour of other cases. Our own Eddie Ventus, the Solution Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University at the very last hour on the eve of the general election, was able to accede to the jurisdiction of the court, calling as to whether he was a citizen entitled to be registered as a voter under eve of election in Barbados. And the court heard him on a Sunday afternoon by an exchange, as you know, through a portal that he be registered as a person entitled to be on the voter's list and to vote in Barbados. And that is it what I'm talking about, enlargening the rights. We don't properly grasp it, but that is in respect of the treaty or rights under the CARICOM Treaty. And citizens of the Caribbean are not making use of it as they should. And then Mr Speaker, you had a famous case and Belize has been producing some famous cases. There's a case called Florin Marin and Jose Coy and the Attorney General of Belize decided upon by the CCJ. And it is a judgment that concerns redress against former ministers for corrupt behavior in public office or abuse of ministerial powers and privileges for personal benefit, which result in financial injury or loss of the state of the crown. Now you're always here. They're not interested in politicians. And in a lecture I did recently, I traced the history of the courts dealing with politicians and in fact I was pointing out that politicians in our region are gradually being encircled by the courts. And they don't have as much room to move like they think they did. In that case, the Attorney General of Belize filed a claim against two former ministers of the Belize government alleging that during their respective terms of ministerial office they arranged a transfer of 56 parcels of land to a company beneficially owned or controlled by one of them. It was further alleged that the consideration paid by the purchasing company was almost one million dollars below market value and that this transaction was undertaken deliberately without lawful authority and in bad faith. Let me go over the facts again briefly. And I'm doing it so for the benefit of our people who are listening. The allegation is that two ministers arrange for 56 acres of land that belong to the government to be, well they were dealing with 56 acres to be dealing, to be made available, owned by a company of which they beneficially owned or in fact was controlled by one of them to benefit themselves. Now I'm sure you have heard echoes of that before and the amount paid by the benefit of one of them was one million dollars below the market and this was well below the market value. So the Attorney General claimed that it was a significant loss to the crown in the amount of $924,056. So the crown was denied an additional sum of money for the land and the question was which you need not focus on because that was a debate between the court was whether the Attorney General could maintain an action against two former ministers of the Malaysian government for the tort of misfeasants in public office. Now there had never been a judgment that confirmed that you can file and succeed in a tort of misfeasants in public office. Yes you can have misfeasants in public office in public law but not in tort and a majority of the court decided yes the time had come to expand the boundaries of tort to us to be held that there was nothing standing in the way of preventing this tort. Now you know the fascinating thing about this case the persons who made that decision of the court were very young jurists and two of the leading members of the court Justice Sanders and of course the former president of the court and you're telling me you're trying to tell me it's a court of cowards a court of cowards and in that is a message for all politicians because rest assured that the same law that was applied in Belize also applied here and the good thing is that in the prevention of corruption act of the special prosecutor legislation parliament ensured that the tort of misfeasants in public office was a ground was a ground for those politicians who may have engaged in corrupt acts they took no chances the second case i want to touch on and this is one i disagree fundamentally with the judgment concerns a matter of accountability in electoral matters and i disagree with with that judgment is a case of Roosevelt's carrot regional Austria and Antoine default now there's an old English term they're called treating and in England in England on English common law treating is unlawful in other words treating means that if you are engaged in a political campaign and other campaign the rally you are serving people free rum free food you know i mean free bear then according to that you're engaged in treating and you are therefore committing an unlawful act and therefore if you the person was elected by virtue of those activities then couple smoke your pipe now you want to tell me you are though you should i mean the prime minister should make this case mandatory for all of you you know why because come next election couple smoke your pipe because i wouldn't be wrong couple smoke your pipe because you may well find yourself engaging in treating now what happened in this case for me it was an astonishing judgment the court of appeal the high court i think it was held that it had jurisdiction to consider the charge of treating before it against Roosevelt and his team of ministers it went to the court of appeal and the court of appeal i think ruled against the high court judge and said no no no if there's an allegation of treating because it touches on the issue of the membership of the offender in parliament then in that case it's a constitutional matter and a constitutional claim should have been brought the ccj reversed the hike the cj said the magistrate is right because the magistrate was conferred that restriction and the magistrate was right to hear the charges and determine the charges even if the question of membership becomes a secondary question would you imagine placing elected members accused perhaps of treating at the mercy of a magistrate who is at the lower rung of the judicial ladder on such a significant matter and i'm paraphrasing i don't have the time and yet the caribbean court of justice said yes a magistrate can make that decision i should make the decision you know the intriguing thing was that accessing the magistrate the jurisdiction of the magistrate was a very simple thing because you know accessing magistrates was relatively simple and what is my message to you one my message to you is that the caribbean court of justice is a fearless institution it has never been afraid to rule against politicians it has um it has um delivered some of of the most painful decisions that affect politicians for which politicians will have to be on their guard and perhaps doing things that no other court could do now i disagree with a judgment in that dominican case i think you're wrong is that reason for me to lose faith and confidence in the court mr speaker the answer is no and i'm always reminded of religious individuals and churches and so on when pastors sin whether it is the catholic church or the anican church and they come in all manner of sin and then engage in all kind of infidelity and deterrent of blacks should i lose confidence in praying to our god or going to church because of their human errors and human mistakes no i would still go to church i'll do it and i don't go to church i don't know where to get those things from but be that as a feminist speaker so i disagree but that doesn't mean that i should lose faith i agree with the court of appeal ruling that really this touched on the issue of membership that really that should have been dealt with by a constitutional motion i agree that's my view and in my own writing on the issue i have criticized the court for it but the wider point is that they've had the courage courage mr speaker to rule against political elites of our region mr speaker i want to end on this note mr speaker an event took place yesterday that has monumental implications for the future of the laws of this country and the courts of this country i'm aware that the matter was touched on in sub-judice but i'm not in the business of program making any pronouncements regarding the outcome what i think about the arguments and that's why i'm not going to do that that's not what i'm about this speaker so you don't need to invoke a standing order to strike me down mr speaker it's an issue that was before the court and i'm talking about the case that involves two members of this chamber the leader of the opposition and a member for cast result an issue before the court was whether an article in our civil code which allowed for the importation of english law meant that in those areas where references were made whether the law the term law for the time being meant that the meaning was ambulatory such that it referred not to the law that existed in 1957 when the amendments were made but to all english laws after 1957 put to singly mr speaker the question was whether a defamation act enacted by the united kingdom in 2013 was by virtue of that provision the law of seclusion in 2023 now if the privy council agrees with the court of appeal this would lead to the most dramatic and revolutionary interpretation of the laws of this country and what it would mean is that in those subject areas be defamation awkward eye contracts or otherwise that if you want to find out what the law says we have to go to england to find out what the english did know what their laws are and apply down here what they call mutatis mutandis if they are united right what does this have to do with all of this i am not saying that a ccj would have cured this that's not my point i'm far from it mr speaker but you know what the chickens are coming home to ruse it is our objurate refusal to tackle our inheritance that's a problem everybody i wrote about this matter extensively i know how much injustice baron is aware of it it has found itself in his judgments and we should have dealt with that a long time ago but we did not we did not because for some of us it pleased us that somehow we allowed for the importation of english law to govern our business 44 years after independence you want to tell me that if solutions want to find out what the law is they have to go to the english parliament find out what the english parliament enacted find out which provisions apply to them and you want to tell me i must accept mr speaker the retention of the privy council i must accept that inheritance that's what the problem is we don't want to look at our inheritance because we believe all things handed down from the imperial throne was good and right and proper that it protected us not knowing not knowing that we're injuring ourselves our legacy our reputation our thinking our being who we are and what we are no matter what decision the privy council comes to there's no question that this provision in our civil court will have to be reviewed and the attorney general better start to work on it now how could said blusher 44 years after independence tell me that its laws can only be understood if we know what the english parliament has enacted you think when they sit in the House of Commons passing their laws they remotely remember that a little country like Saint Lucia is interested in our laws or they'll have to follow their laws you think they care who supports Saint Lucia they will snide and make their snide remarks you think they care what are we saying about ourselves and so mr speaker on an end on this note this constitutional amendment is about us it is about ourselves it is about our future it is about our honor it is about integrity it's about the fact that we understand we as good as any anywhere in the world and we must never ever make the mistake of continuing to short change ourselves by believing that others are better than us our judges are as good as any anywhere because dispensing justice all over the world and yes i have problems with judges yes i have problems with court decisions but that doesn't mean that because they are problems that they issues that we should dispense with what is rightfully ours and that we don't recognize the quality and brilliance of what we have mr speaker i asked the people who said lucia to give me the opportunity to speak to them i have been robust i admit i have been very robust in what i've said today and i hope i have said it in a way that they can understand me and why over the years i have championed the caribbean court of justice why i have been at the forefront of the caribbean court of justice and i said in this house before under no circumstances would i betray what i have believed in and what i have said i've said so before and there are times that some of you hear uncomfortable when i say that but you don't have to be uncomfortable because i want to be faithful to what i preached and if i sat and come and participated and guided the drafting of that agreement sign it in 2014 commence the process that has taken us this far now being completed by my successor you expect me to come to this house repudiated on this fanciful notion of referendum that is so unnecessary i can't do that neither my trading my conscience or my philosophy allows me to do so i thank you mr speaker for your tolerance and understanding