CCJ pronounced on 111 cases from Guyana since opening in 2005

Since its opening 17 years ago, the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has pronounced on 249 cases, of which the majority – 111 were from Guyana. The other 88 are from Barbados, another 42 from Belize, and the remaining eight from Dominica.

This was revealed by CCJ Judge Denys Barrow during his presentation at a virtual law conference organised by the Bar Association of Guyana as part of activities in observance of its Inaugural Law Week 2022 which was held from April 3-9.
Justice Barrow’s presentation was based on Guyana’s contributions to the jurisprudence of the CCJ which, in its appellate jurisdiction, is the final court of appeal for criminal and civil matters for the aforementioned countries. The regional court decided its first case from Guyana on May 12, 2006. It was the case of Griffith v the Guyana Revenue Authority and another.
He also recognised the efforts of the lawyers who appeared in this case. Justice Barrow explained that the practice area in which most of these judgements have been given include land, criminal, constitutional, company, and commercial law, practice and procedure, judicial review, and Original Jurisdiction claims. In its Original Jurisdiction, the CCJ is an international court with exclusive authority to interpret and apply the rules set out in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) and to decide disputes arising under it.
The RTC established the Caribbean Community (Caricom) and the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME). In its Original Jurisdiction, the CCJ is critical to the CSME and all 12 Member States which belong to the CSME (including citizens, businesses, and governments) can access the court’s Original Jurisdiction to protect their rights under the RTC. He told the gathering that Inaugural Law Week 2022 provides a fitting opportunity to fully recognise how greatly the development of an appellate court’s jurisprudence depends on the efforts of the officers of the court – its lawyers.
He said, “It takes excellent lawyering to produce excellent judgements. This adage expresses just how dependent a court is on its lawyers. By the quality of their efforts and talent, lawyers enable courts to produce judgements of the highest quality. It is fundamental that this is the process that enables and assists the court to develop its jurisprudence.”
The CCJ Judge noted that it has been remarked that Guyana, which has by thousands of times the largest landmass and lowest population density, generates the most land law cases. This factor, he noted, makes it curious that a discernible feature is a concern with title to land and many of these are commonplace. He, however, said that some of these cases attract attention because of the need they demonstrated for the CCJ, in the particular circumstances, to clarify the operation of the establishment.

Savings law clause
He said that constitutional law cases from Guyana have attracted particular attention for the development in the jurisprudence on the “savings law clause”, which has bedevilled the full enjoyment of some fundamental rights declared in the Constitution.
He went on to explain that the clause, included in the attainment of independence in various constitutions across the region, served to preserve existing, pre-independence laws and saved them from being declared invalid for being in conflict with the new constitutions.
Justice Barrow highlighted that the clause has been allowed to operate for decades after the attainment of independence to preserve laws that are universally acknowledged to violate basic human rights. Instead of being struck down, the CCJ Judge said that such unconstitutional laws have been protected or saved by the savings law clause.
“It is important to recall that the clause was intended, at inception, to allow us space, for local legislatures to reform existing laws that will be revealed to be unconstitutional with the advent of the new Constitution,” he pointed out. “However, because there has not been the legislative reform which was contemplated in the conception, the clause has been allowed to operate for decades after the attainment of independence to preserve laws.”
Justice Barrow reminded that in the case of McEwan and others against the Attorney General of Guyana, the CCJ declared invalid a colonial-era law that criminalised cross-dressing because it infringed the constitutional right to equality before the law, non-discrimination, and freedom of expression. He noted that the apex court held that the savings law clause was incapable of preserving the law from a declaration of unconstitutionality and being struck down.
Meanwhile, by signing and ratifying the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice, other Caricom Member States have demonstrated a commitment to making the CCJ their final court of appeal. The CCJ said that is a realisation of a vision of our ancestors, an expression of independence, and a signal of the region’s coming of age.