Don’t say I and others haven’t been telling you to resist the document that the Prime Minister has been peddling as a superb draft constitution for Trinidad and Tobago. Now comes the Chief Justice expressing his concerns regarding what the document says about the judiciary.

Mr Archie is polite. ’In my respectful view,’ he says, ’(some of the provisions of the draft) stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of (the judiciary’s) role and function and have disturbing implications for judicial independence The misunderstanding lies in the assumption of a false dichotomy between the judiciary’s judicial and administrative functions and the assumption that one can be independently exercised without the other.’

He goes on: ’The danger lies in the potential to gradually and systematically strip the judiciary of its independence and the citizens of their protection through ordinary or subordinate legislation requiring no special majority.’ (My emphasis.)

Last June 2I spoke to a Public Services Association group in Tobago about the Manning document. Given the audience, I devoted a fair amount of my remarks to the document’s Public Service aspects. But I did also address other issues, including the judiciary, and I drew attention to the very sections highlighted by Mr Archie-121 to 125, 136 and 142. I also made mention of section 99.

Normally, I would be delighted to find myself in the same analytical corner as a Chief Justice. But this occasion is no cause for delight. Both Mr Archie and I are greatly alarmed. I cannot speak for him, but, as far as I am concerned, what the Manning draft proposes for the judiciary is merely an element-an entirely logical element, mind you-of its cheerleader’s overall philosophy of individual predominance.

With impeccable diplomatic restraint, Mr Archie says that ’whoever produced (the) draft may not have served us as well as they might have ’ He nonetheless makes it clear that ’the judiciary remains open to consultation on the best way forward’, while warning that it ’is not an arm of the executive.’

I agree. Where I part company with the Chief Justice is on his statement-perhaps he was only trying to be diplomatically restrained-that some provisions of the draft arise from ’a fundamental misunderstanding of (the judiciary’s) role and function ’ I don’t accept for an instant that there has been any misunderstanding at all.

I have repeatedly made the point over the last several months that the draft is a toxic potion for one-person dictatorship being proffered to us in a chalice of mock constitutionality. The Chief Justice naturally concentrated on the judiciary, but for me the entire document is a brazen attempt to bring all the institutions of the country-the judiciary, to be sure, but also the Police, Public and Teaching Services, the Service Commissions, the DPP, the Parliament, and so on -under the control of one man. The powers (already too extensive) enjoyed by a prime minister in our current Constitution pale in comparison to what Manning’s draft proposes for the executive president. And we all know who is hellbent on being the first executive president.

To make things more frightening, Manning’s proposals are devoid of checks and balances. They are, quite simply, among the most anti-democratic I have ever come across in any country wishing to call itself, and be called, democratic. And to think that we will soon be hosting the Heads of Government of a Commonwealth that emphasizes adherence to democratic principles!

Very importantly, Mr Archie calls for active citizen participation and involvement in the formulation of any new constitution. He is of course correct, but we should bear in mind that the government’s interpretation of ’public consultation’ throughout the years has been the occasional town hall meeting in which government spokespersons tell the audience what the government intends to do on this or that matter. Hardly consultation in any meaningful sense.

Now, in its response to the Chief Justice, the government has said what I expected it to say. With one exception, though: I didn’t anticipate hearing that we were dealing with a ’working document’, not a ’draft constitution’. But wasn’t it Mr Manning himselfwhorecently used the phrase ’draft constitution’ to describe the document?Who was reported as assuring the Mayaro multitude on September 5 that it ’contain(ed) remedies for every single problem being faced by the society’? And who promised ’maximum autonomy’ for Tobago, even before speaking to Tobago? Now, suddenly, all this is just a work in progress? Ah tell yuh.

The Manning draft constitution-that is what it is-must be considered seriously by all of us. This isn’t a question of party or region or race or whatever. This is a matter for the country as a whole. Our democratic future is at stake. Dr Hamid Ghany is to lead a team to hold meetings with the public on the issue, and I encourage the public to attend and vigorously participate.I hope Dr Ghany obtains a firm guarantee of divine assistance before he embarks on his journeys. He will need it.

Mr Archie has put the government on the defensive. That is good. It is always good for democracy when the people, and high officials like a Chief Justice, push back.