THERE WILL BE more time before Barbados and Guyana can be joined by their neighbours in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

In essence, if the only two CARICOM nations that recognise the CCJ as their final court feel lonely, then that situation might not end soon.

According to Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, constitutional barriers to jettisoning the Privy Council in London as the court of last resort for members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) prevent them from joining Barbados and Guyana.

Indeed, he told the DAILY NATION in New York that his nation was looking at a possible date of November 2006 for a referendum to decide the matter.

"In our case we have to go to a referendum," he said. "Our view is that we have to take it to the people at some point, looking at a possible target date of November of next year."

As Spencer saw it, the legal barriers to joining the CCJ couldn't be easily overcome in the OECS.

"The constitutions in all of the OECS territories not only require them to have a referendum, but have a two-thirds majority in the House(s) of Representatives and a two-thirds majority at a referendum in order for us to get out of the Privy Council," he said.

"It is an entrenched position in these constitutions. Barbados is the only one up to now that is reasonably clear. As a matter of fact, there is a case the court is now hearing out of Barbados.

"Guyana is also clear on that because they had dispensed with the Privy Council a long time ago.

"Jamaica tried to do it but they ran into some constitutional problems so they are now looking at how to get around the issue of a referendum," he added.

"Trinidad and Tobago seems to be indifferent where they are, despite the fact that the court is in Trinidad and Tobago."

Spencer expressed confidence that "eventually", all CARICOM member-states would accept the court's appellate jurisdiction.

"It will fall into place," he declared. "We have no problems with the original jurisdiction of the court. The problem is in the appellate jurisdiction."

However, St Lucia's Minister of External Affairs, Petrus Compton, who served for years as attorney-general and was intricately involved in the preparations for the CCJ, painted a different picture on the legal and constitutional requirements to leave the Privy Council.

"That is not the assessment that has come from the legal opinions that I have seen [as attorney-general]," he said.

"When one speaks of a referendum, he or she is speaking from a legal point of view. But many countries from a political point of view may believe it is wise to get the public support fully behind what is going to be the most important legal and judicial decision and institution by ensuring that the public has an opportunity to state its preference for the CCJ over the Privy Council.

"The creation of the CCJ isn't simply a legal and constitutional matter; it is matter of great political import as well," he said.

"A government may think it is wise that notwithstanding there isn't a constitutional requirement to actually go to the public in one form or another, they may wish to get a vote of confidence from the public."

As he explained it, political parties could include and highlight a plank in their campaign platforms at election time indicating their intention to replace the Privy Council with the CCJ. And if they won the election, that could be seen as a mandate to join the CCJ.

Why then the delay by the OECS in joining the court?

"We in the OECS would like to go in together," said one diplomat.

"If we can't do that, then the next approach is for each of us to set a timetable for entry into the CCJ.

"If we can have a situation in which we know when the various countries aim to go in, then some of us can move."