Buchanan MP ties CCJ switch to poor litigants and presses human rights record

Member of Parliament Isat Buchanan told the House that vesting final appellate authority in the Caribbean Court of Justice, rather than the Privy Council in London, places the country’s highest court within reach of litigants who cannot afford to pursue appeals overseas. He said a court substantially funded, staffed, and led by the region is what makes that shift real for the average citizen.

“Decolonization that does not reach the poor is decoration,” Buchanan said. He pointed to Privy Council guidance in the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights case as support for proceeding without a referendum, but said it would require political courage from members elected to serve in the chamber.

Buchanan took issue with remarks attributed during the debate to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, including that Jamaica does not—and should never—have a human rights problem, and that anyone who claims otherwise needs to have their head examined. He argued the minister responsible for justice and the constitution should be the last person in the House to pronounce the nation’s rights record beyond reproach.

He cited the most recent United States Department of State country report on human rights practices in Jamaica, which recorded 111 fatalities and stated that adequate systems were not in place. During the same period, the Independent Commission of Investigations received 709 complaints alongside those fatalities. The report also described lockups meant to hold persons for 48 hours detaining them longer, and noted that Jamaica’s prisons are outdated.

Drawing on advice from his father, Manley Augustus Buchanan, he said human rights must never be treated like an ostrich with its head in the sand—a posture that signals danger rather than strategy.

Buchanan said the minister’s response to that catalogue rested on directing citizens to the Office of the Public Defender. He noted that, by law, the office cannot appear in court and may only retain attorneys for those it assists, and that Parliament may lawfully disregard its findings and decline to act on its recommendations. A remedy that cannot enter the courtroom and whose conclusions the state may shelve at will, he said, is not proof that rights are secure but a measure of how exposed they are.

The exchange reinforced Buchanan’s position that questions about the constitution—including appellate reform and the state of human rights—belong in open parliamentary debate.