The legal battle surrounding the Portmore parish law took a significant turn yesterday after the Supreme Court issued an order requiring the Government to comply with constitutional requirements before the law can come into effect.
Both the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) and the Government have claimed victory following the ruling, as the political and legal conflict deepens over the creation of Portmore as Jamaica’s 15th parish.
The court’s ruling stems from an injunction sought by the PNP, which argues that the Government’s rush to implement the law violates constitutional procedures concerning constituency boundary changes. The case centres on the Counties and Parishes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which aims to grant Portmore parish status but has been embroiled in controversy over its potential to affect electoral boundaries and the constitutional integrity of the electoral system.
In a landmark decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice Bryan Sykes outlined the Government’s “unequivocal undertaking” not to bring the legislation into operation until it adheres to Section 67 of the Jamaican Constitution, which stipulates the procedure for adjusting constituency boundaries.
This ensures that the law will not be enforced until the necessary constitutional requirements are met, including consultations with the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) and proper boundary reviews.
‘BLATANT BREACH’
Fitz Jackson, the PNP’s spokesman on Portmore Affairs and one of the claimants in the case, hailed the court’s order as a victory for justice and accountability.
“The court has affirmed what we have consistently maintained: the Government was attempting to move forward in blatant breach of the constitutional process,” Jackson said.
“The fact that the court has compelled the Government to give an undertaking – effectively halting their unlawful actions – demonstrates the seriousness of their disregard for due process.”
Jackson also pointed to a letter sent to Parliament by the ECJ in June 2024, which raised concerns about the Government’s failure to comply with the Constitution.
“The Government’s disregard for both the commission’s warning and the rule of law left us with no choice but to seek judicial intervention,” he added, stressing that the PNP would continue to hold the Government accountable and defend the sanctity of Jamaican law.
‘WE ARE NOT TURNING BACK’
On the other side of the political spectrum, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has expressed strong support for the Government’s handling of the Portmore parish issue.
Alando Terrelonge, member of parliament for St Catherine East Central, labelled the court ruling a “win for the people of Portmore and the Government of Jamaica”.
He emphasised that the parish status was a promise long championed by the Government and would bring significant benefits to the residents of Portmore, including greater autonomy, improved infrastructure planning, and enhanced opportunities for local development.
“Parish status is something I have championed, and this Government will continue to take the necessary administrative steps to deliver on this promise in keeping with the wishes of the people,” Terrelonge asserted. “We are not turning back.”
He also dismissed the PNP’s legal challenge as a political move designed to disrupt the process, calling it “premature” and accusing the Opposition of lacking vision for Portmore’s growth.
Despite the political claims of both parties, the legal issue at hand revolves around the potential constitutional breaches that could result from the premature enforcement of the Portmore parish law.
The PNP has raised concerns that implementing the law without proper constituency boundary adjustments could lead to “widespread instability and electoral confusion”. Specifically, the proposed boundary for Portmore, which straddles multiple constituencies, could violate constitutional provisions prohibiting the crossing of parish lines in constituency delineation.
THE DISPUTE
At the heart of the dispute is Section 67 of the Jamaican Constitution, which governs the process for changing constituency boundaries. The PNP claims that the Government’s actions would lead to irreparable harm, while the Government argues that the Counties and Parishes (Amendment) Act is a separate matter from constituency boundaries, focusing solely on granting Portmore parish status.
The Government’s legal team argued that there was no intention to bring the Portmore parish law into effect until the constituency boundaries were settled. In their court filings, the Government’s attorneys assured that no date had been set for the law’s enforcement, and the Minister of Local Government, Desmond McKenzie, had not revealed plans to bring it into operation.
This stance is in line with the Government’s claim that the law does not conflict with constitutional requirements for constituency boundary changes, as it pertains to administrative matters rather than electoral ones.
Yet, the PNP remains steadfast in its belief that the law’s implementation would violate the Constitution, potentially causing significant disruption to the political landscape.
The PNP lawsuit, filed on March 17, argued that moving forward with the legislation could lead to “potentially irreparable constitutional breaches” and destabilise local governance structures, especially in Portmore, which could be subjected to electoral confusion if the law is found unconstitutional.
ECJ CONCERNS
The ECJ has also weighed in on the matter, warning that the proposed boundary changes could have a detrimental impact on the constitutional provision prohibiting the crossing of parish lines in constituency boundaries. The ECJ’s concerns are particularly focused on the potential for the new Portmore parish boundary to affect four constituencies, 13 electoral divisions, and hundreds of polling divisions across St Catherine. However, the Government maintains that it has been in regular contact with the ECJ to resolve these issues, despite delays in receiving updates.
Former ECJ Chairman Professor Errol Miller has weighed in on the legal complexities, stating that under the Constitution, the earliest Portmore could gain parish status is February 2026.
This is due to the strict constitutional timelines for reviewing constituency boundaries every four years following the last general review, which ended in February 2022, Miller noted in an opinion published on his blog earlier this month.
As the legal battle continues, the PNP and the Government are preparing for a protracted fight over the Portmore parish law, which has sparked fierce debate about constitutional integrity, governance, and political strategy.
