The journey towards this decision had several steps and was altered under the final Constitution:

1. Sensitive to the possibility that the Appellate Division might feel undermined by a new separate court with considerable powers, the negotiators at first proposed that the Appellate Division should remain the final arbiter of all matters that it heard. They suggested, however, that it be precluded from deciding on constitutional matters which would be in the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court only. In this way, the Constitutional Court would never overrule the Appellate Division because the latter would never hear constitutional cases.
2. Michael Corbett, Chief Justice of the Appellate Division at the time, did not endorse this proposal, insisting that the Constitutional Court be a chamber of the Appellate Division.  
3. However, at the meeting on 14 September, the MPNP’s Negotiating Council endorsed the idea of a separate court that would have jurisdiction over all constitutional matters.
4. The Interim Constitution provided that once a constitutional matter was raised in any other court other than the Constitutional Court, then the proceedings in that court would be suspended and the matter would be referred to the Constitutional Court for determination. 
5. The Interim Constitution thus established a two track legal system, one track for constitutional cases and the other for non-constitutional issues.
6. The Constitutional Court found this process cumbersome and inconvenient as often the factual substratum of the constitutional matter had not been established. The Constitutional Court did not want to be a court determining basic factual issues, and was of the view that it would be better to have a decision of another court that could inform their thinking about the matter.
7. The final Constitution resolved this issue by reforming the hierarchy of the courts. It provides that the Constitutional Court, a specialist court, is at the top of the hierarchy. The old Appellate Division was renamed the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA). 
8. The Constitutional Court would hear only constitutional appeals while the SCA would hear all appeals including constitutional issues, thus granting the SCA the constitutional jurisdiction denied by the Interim Constitution. The Constitutional Court could also function as a court of first instance over some constitutional matters and in certain circumstances.
9. The final Constitution has been amended to provide that the Constitutional Court is the apex court for all matters and not just constitutional matters.