During the past fortnight or so, the trustworthiness of the prime minister has been called into question on two scores from two different quarters.

First, the parliamentary Opposition questioned whether the circumstances surrounding the purchase of lands at Ferry at a cost of $168.7 million to assist the Hydel Group of Schools did not amount to a breach of trust and an abuse of power on the part of the prime minister.

In the second instance, Dr. Lloyd Barnett asserted that the prime minister's volte face concerning a constitutional amendment to remove the five-year stricture, imposed by our highest court for the execution of the death penalty, indicated that "politicians cannot be trusted".

The prime minister's response to each of those suggestions was as far as the east is from the west. In one case, the response was most respectful; in the other, his response was offensive.

With respect to the Opposition's questions, Hansard records the prime minister (and his government colleagues) as follows:

"The Prime Minister: I make one final comment, Madam Speaker. It is ironic, if not ludicrous for this Opposition, this oneÉ (pointing to the Opposition).

Mr Shaw: Yes! See dem dey! Bare face!

The Prime Minister: to use this as a basis of accusing - for accusing this Government of corruption. It will be a long time, a long time before anyone on that side will regain the moral authority to accuse anybody of corruption. (Applause) (Cross talk/heckling)

Opposition Member: No, no, no, no.

(Dr Harris rises and gesticulates)

Mr Vaz: Se dung! Se dung! Gway! Move! Idiot!"

offensive response

That was not one of the prime minister's prouder moments in Parliament and his lieutenants merely followed his lead. That response was offensive, and what is more, some, including his opposition colleague MP Robert Pickersgill, say that history shows that Golding and the JLP, on this kind of issue, live in a glass house. But, these are matters for the prime minister to ponder and contemplate.

The response to Dr Barnett's assertion was totally different in character. Hansard again records:

The prime minister: "We agreed to a proposal by the Opposition, that in the event that the decision is for the retention (of the death penalty), then to the extent that the five-year limitation imposes a burden and an obstacle, we would be prepared to support - indeed, we would have to initiate, with the support of the Opposition - but we would be prepared to act in consensus to introduce the appropriate amendment to the Constitution.

strong position

"My very good friend - and I have tremendous respect for him - Dr Lloyd Barnett, made the point this morning on a radio programme that I have taken a very strong position against that before, and the fact that I have retreated from that position is an indication that politicians can't be trusted. (Laughter) I respect him, I disagree with his conclusion."

Exemplary leadership would have required a response in like manner and with such a measured tone to his opposition parliamentary colleagues. Or, is the inference to be drawn that he does not "respect" them? Again, this is a matter for the prime minister to contemplate.

On the morning radio programme to which Golding referred, Barnett expressed the view that the decision for the legislature to remove the five-year limitation imposed by the Judicial Committee was "unprincipled".

He did not mention what principle was being undermined or in what way such a principle was being attacked.

He certainly could not have been suggesting that the legislature was about to embark upon something outside of its competence or outside of its powers or outside the boundaries of the constitution.

Barnett

good governance

If we are told the nature of the "unprincipled" position that is being adopted, then we would be in a position to answer directly. But, surely, within the system that we operate, and within the Commonwealth and beyond, the legislature, of necessity, reserves the right to pass laws for what it considers to be required for good governance and good order.

Within the Commonwealth and the United States, for example, there is a constant push for Parliament or Congress to pass laws which would nullify decisions made by their highest court. This is nothing new.

The unending abortion conversation among disparate groups; matters relating to the burning of the flag; and the teaching of religious matters in schools are mere examples of the several issues on which people within the United States have pushed for the intervention of Congress to overturn rulings of the court.

Matters relating to homosexuality, same-sex marriage and civil unions have all added to that kind of "tension" in several countries across the globe. One does not hear of any "unprincipled" label being attached to Congress or any other legislative body for heeding any such call, provided they act responsibly.

The fact is that, that five-year ruling of our highest court shook the very foundations of the system of the administration of criminal justice in these Caribbean territories. Subsequent decisions served to pour oil on already troubled waters. One of its judges, Lord Leonard Hoffmann, in one of those very cases, predicted an unfortunate outcome.

In the entire legal history of the Commonwealth Caribbean, no set of decisions by any court on any subject matter has caused so much unease, and given rise to so much controversy and commentary: writings in books, periodicals, law reviews, newspapers, examination papers, discussions on radio, on television, on verandas, at parties and at functions of every sort. soaring crime

They have engaged the thinking of parliamentarians, journalists of differing stripes, professors of sociology, law, history and government, and more, students of various disciplines, legal practitioners, and the people of a region, burdened by the heavy hand of a searing and constantly soaring crime and murder rate.

And, on top of all that, several legal experts have long concluded that those rulings de facto abolished or, at least, suspended the carrying out of the penalty, thereby contributing to a loss of confidence on the part of burdened peoples in the ability of their several governments to enforce the lawful sentence of the court.

These experts acknowledge that several factors contribute to that lack of confidence; they are also satisfied that the "judicial abolition/suspension of the death penalty" - a power constitutionally reserved for the legislature - is numbered among them. All of those factors must be actively addressed for the required confidence to return.

The parliamentarians in Barbados, at the eastern end of the Caribbean, removed the five-year limitation in 2002. Belize, at the western end, has developed a draft bill to that effect, among other things.

death penalty

In that vein, the 2002 Manifesto of the PNP put forward the following:

"Constitutional changes: The infliction of the death penalty for heinous cases of murder is supported by the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans and is authorised by the constitution. Since 1993, the will of the Jamaican people has been frustrated by a series of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council commencing with Pratt and Morgan.

"This has had the effect of preventing the use of the death penalty as a punishment legally and constitutionally imposed by the State, and of undermining confidence in the judicial system.

"In order to give effect to the will of the people, a People's National Party government will seek to amend the constitution to reverse the effects of the decision(s) in Pratt and Morgan and subsequent cases. Such a constitutional amendment will be made by a special act of parliament under Section 50 of the constitution and will require the support of no less than two-thirds of all the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate." This means essentially that such an amendment will require Opposition support.

"It is important that in a matter of such significance, the constitutional amendment should receive bipartisan support.

""These proposals have been the subject of intensive consultation among our CARICOM partners who are equally affected by the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In this regard, the Parliament of Barbados on the 21st August 2002 with bipartisan support enacted the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2002, to give effect to provisions similar to those proposed in this manifesto."

Unprincipled, Dr. Barnett? Let Lord Hoffmann sum up the problem and part of the challenge, quoting from his speech to the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago, at its annual dinner in October 2003:

"The interpretation, which a final court of appeal gives to a constitution can therefore have far-reaching effects upon the people of the country which it serves. It can change their lives for better or for worse. This is particularly true of the parts of the Constitution, which deal with human rights.

"I was born and brought up in South Africa, in the colonial and apartheid years. It is an extraordinary fact that for nearly nine years I have been a member of the final court of appeal for the independent Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, a confident democracy with its own culture and national values, and this is the first time that I have set foot on the islands. No one unaware of the historic links between the islands and the United Kingdom would believe it possible.

"Although the Privy Council has done its best to serve the Caribbean and, I venture to think, has done much to improve the administration of justice in parallel with improvements in the United Kingdom, our remoteness from the community has been a handicap.

"We have been necessarily cautious in doing anything which might be seen as inappropriate in local conditions and although this caution may have occasionally saved us from doing the wrong thing, I am sure it has also sometimes inhibited us from doing the right thing."

A.J. Nicholson is Opposition spokesman on justice.