Trinidad and Tobago is a unique country but from its inception, it has always been a follower of the colonial system.

In the first place, the constitution was inherited and copied from the Westminster System. It worked in the past but now it has become outdated and because of recent changes from rulings on capital punishments in the privy council, it is ambiguous and comatose.

After reading the guest column in Newsday’s last Monday edition (April 29) by Darrel P. Allahar, an attorney with Veritas Chambers, I am convinced that his proposal to do away with the privy council and the CCJ makes a whole lot of sense.

TT is the home of the CCJ but this country is not a signatory with the CCJ and retains the UK-based Privy Cuncil as the final appellate court of the island.

In addition, the same Privy Council has ruled that the death penalty is now cruel and inhumane while this was the same judiciary that handed down that hanging and capital punishment by death was acceptable.

As a result, today in TT, the death penalty is no longer used because of the Pratt and Morgan case and as of 1993, the judiciary rendered that any person convicted of murder and who has been incarcerated for more than five years should not be hanged. Yet the death penalty remains on TT’s law books.

It stated that five years in waiting is a period of torture and could lead to a disorder then called “death row syndrome or death row phenomenon.” So in essence, people convicted of murdering our citizens and who remain in jail for five or more will most likely escape the hangman’s noose.

But not only the privy council comes with uncertainty, let us remember what happened when the PPP/C of Guyana had made submissions to the CCJ to decide the results of the elections of May 11, 2015. The CCJ could not clearly define if 32 or 33 was half of 65.

The CCJ delayed and the wrangling between the PNC and the PPP/C lingered for some time before a consensus was reached that the PPP/C was the winner of the elections.

That initially prompted many people including myself to believe that the CCJ was operating unfairly and looked biased while pondering to reach a decision.

Perhaps that is one of the fundamental reasons why Trinidad and Tobago has never been signed on to the CCJ as its final appellate court.

Therefore, my arguments are in support of Darrell Allahar’s suggestion that we should consider forming an appellate court; this would strengthen our independence and reassure the nation of the capabilities of jurisprudence.

JAY RAKHAR

New York