As it sought to clarify what it believed were misconceptions in Chief Justice Ivor Archie’s understanding of the ’working document’ on constitution reform, Government stated yesterday that the document was not cast in stone, that everything in it could be adjusted, and that it (Government) simply wanted to amend the Constitution in accordance with the wishes of the people.

Among those wishes was the cry for a ’more sophisticated justice system’, it contended.

The Government also emphasised that the comments of the Chief Justice as ’a significant stakeholder’ were welcomed, and would be given every consideration in working through the process of constitution reform.

It also stated that it looked forward to the Chief Justice taking up the ’standing invitation’ from the Government to meet with a team from the Executive, to discuss the general arrangements for the delivery of justice.

The tone of the statement was calm, very conciliatory and not at all confrontational or combative. However, Government appeared to defend the idea of the Ministry of Justice and to refute the Chief Justice’s assertions that it would impair judicial independence.

’In the course of his address last Wednesday, the Honourable Chief Justice spoke on the creation of a Ministry of Justice. The concept of a Ministry of Justice is not a novel idea. Ministries of Justice already exist in several Caribbean territories as well as the United Kingdom, from which country much of our judicial arrangements are inherited,’ the statement said.

The Government hammered the point that there was a huge distinction between a working document and a draft Constitution.

’The working document ... in no way represents a draft Constitution, but a discussion document put out for public comment. Persons commenting on the document, including the Honourable Chief Justice, are therefore mistaken in referring to the document as a draft Constitution,’ the statement said.

The Government further emphasised that the working document had been preceded by ten earlier drafts which had been adjusted and amended upon opinion being expressed, and there was no reason why this process of editing and modification could not continue.

’The document originally proposed by Sir Ellis Clarke has undergone several permutations as the contributions of key stakeholders have been considered and embraced. Thus far, there have been 11 versions of the initial document ... In laying the working document in Parliament ... the Honourable Prime Minister was at pains to say that this was a working document which required further discussion and a thorough examination at the national level. ... Indeed, it was made clear that everything in the working document was up for discussion.’

In the statement, Government reaffirmed its commitment to the separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary.

But the Government also pointed out that a more ’sophisticated justice system is now being demanded by a discerning public, aspiring to developed country status. This Government considers that responsible and transparent responses to these demands should lie at the heart of the arrangements that are put in place for the delivery of swift justice. Justice delayed is justice denied’.

The statement was authored by a team of ministers which comprised Attorney General John Jeremie, Tertiary Education Minister Christine Kangaloo, Planning and Housing Minister Emily Gaynor Dick-Forde and Information Minister Neil Parsanlal.