In response to Prof. Prakash Persad's article "Diversity and Westminster" in the Guardian October 22, while I support his expressed view that "the Westminster style of government that exists here (T&T) is incompatible with the realities of our diverse society" the good professor like many other analysts continue to place great emphasis on the executive/administrative role of government in discussing constitutional reform.

One distinctive feature of the US system, often overlooked as opposed to the Westminster system is that it does not rely primarily on the electoral process and on elected representation to safeguard the rights and liberties of its citizens.  The US Bill of Rights is viewed in absolute terms compromised only by another conflicting right and restricts government encroachment on such rights, a position upheld by the US Supreme Court.  In my opinion, the US system reflects the true spirit of constitutional supremacy.  In addition, in the US there is a referendum system for instituting change with greater respect and consideration of dissenting views.

By contrast, the Westminster system has been one of parliamentary supremacy.  Needless to say, since its participation in the European Union, its citizens now enjoy greater protection of their rights and liberties from government encroachment.

The existing savings clause in T&T's constitution imported (wholesale) the British common law which was the underpinning of the slavery system, with one set of laws for the masters and another for the slaves.  This disparity is still evident in our legal/justice system and continues to undermine the true spirit and intent of constitutional supremacy.  As a result, T&T's constitutional supremacy equates parliamentary supremacy.

The US faced similar challenges in its development but through a referendum the US Supreme Court was able to institute change, simply guided by that document.  In reality our enshrined Bill of Rights has little more substantive legal weight than any professional code of ethics.  Moreover, less than one percent of Trinbagonians have the financial capability to access the Privy Council.  While the argument justice delayed is justice denied is easily embraced, I wish to contend that justice that is not accessible is also justice denied.

The Caribbean Court of Justice in its appellate jurisdiction plays a pivotal role in maintaining this country's socioeconomic stability through the process of constitutional reform, judicial reform and by extension public service reform.  Moreover, T&T is not singularly faced with this dilemma but has the added responsibility of pointing the way for our CARICOM neighbours.