IN 2014, the Hugh Wooding Law School hosted the inaugural Wendell Kangaloo Memorial Discussion. In that debate I argued for the adoption of the CCJ as this nation’s highest appellate court and Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, argued for the retention of the Privy Council.

A decade later, I still hold that view.

First, the argument that the CCJ ‘lacks maturity’ as a judicial body is not only disrespectful, but untrue. CCJ jurisprudence is incredibly comprehensive and traverses a wide array of international law and comparative law concepts.

Furthermore, if one takes the argument about maturity to its natural conclusion, then the CCJ will never be ‘mature’ enough for certain detractors. This surely can’t be right.

Second, the argument about political interference-though ‘catchy’-also holds little weight when scrutinised. If this argument held any force, it would mean all of the nation’s courts are equally compromised, or, as lawyers might unhelpfully say, have the ‘potential’ to be politically compromised.

It’s either one or the other. It’s either that all of the nation’s courts are politically compromised, or none of them are. It can’t be the case that the CCJand the CCJ alone-is in a unique position of compromise.

Third, we make much of the need for diversity and indigeneity, yet we seem perfectly fine with retaining the Privy Council as this nation’s final arbiter of disputes.

There are indeed unique aspects of our culture-and, more broadly, Caribbean culture-that a regionally based court is better situated to understand, interpret and even harmonise. Judicial decision-making isn’t some purely logical act divined by beings who exist outside of society. To the contrary, it is an inherently cultural and social process thatwhile objective in its outlookrelies on several subjective elements. To leave the Privy Council as this nation’s highest appellate court does an incredible disservice to the richness and diverseness that a regional court familiar with Trinidad and Tobago’s economic, social and-yes-political conditions is best suited to grapple with and adjudicate upon.

In the end, I recognise my position goes against the views of some in the legal profession. But, with all due respect, it’s time to reclaim our sovereignty and post-colonial identity to the fullest. The adoption of the CCJ as this nation’s highest appellate court is a much-needed step in that direction, in my respectful view.

Dr Emir Crowne

barrister and attorney-at-law