Not a plea for money

THE backlash came quickly after Jamaica filed its reparations petition, with critics questioning the decision to approach the King and some framing the move as Jamaica going cap in hand to Britain for money. But Culture Minister Olivia Grange is drawing a sharp distinction between seeking payment and seeking a legal ruling, saying the petition contains no monetary claim and instead asks the Privy Council to determine three fundamental questions arising from the enslavement of Africans in Jamaica. And with King Charles III having referred those questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Grange announced that the matter has now moved into a new phase, with Attorney General Dr Derrick McKoy set to lead Jamaica’s case as the country awaits directions from the court on the next steps.

The minister made the clarification during Wednesday’s post-Cabinet press briefing, one day after she told Parliament that the King had agreed to refer the petition to the Privy Council. The petition, filed in London on September 7, asks the King, in his capacity as Jamaica’s head of State, to refer questions concerning the legality of transatlantic chattel slavery to the Judicial Committee. Jamaica is using Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 as the legal basis for the request.

Grange said the Government’s objective is not to negotiate a payment with Britain. It is not an interstate negotiation or a demand for payment. It asks legal questions that must be determined by our highest court,” she said.

According to Grange, the three questions concern whether the seizure, forced transportation, and enslavement of Africans as chattel in Jamaica was ever lawful under English law; whether those practices breached international law; and whether the United Kingdom has a legal obligation to provide a reparatory remedy to the people of Jamaica. The distinction is important because the filing has generated criticism both over its substance and the route chosen by the Government. Attorney Gordon Robinson, writing in a column for The Gleaner after the petition was filed, described Jamaica as having gone “cap in hand” to the King, and questioned why the country was using the Privy Council rather than pursuing a case through an international court.

Former Privy Council judge Lord Sumption also criticised the legal strategy, while Jamaican lawyer Ber…