Part I

It is important at the beginning of this series of articles on the Working Document on Constitutional Reform (herein after referred to as the Document) that I make clear the following issues: I was a member of the Prime Minister’s Round Table on constitutional reform and my participation was on the basis that I was free to comment on any aspect of the outcome of the deliberations with which I did not agree; this was agreed; further it should be noted when the Prime Minister tabled the Document in Parliament on January 9, 2009, he stated in part: ’I wish to make it abundantly clear that though there are views and positions in this document to which both the Government and members of the Round Table subscribe, there is no complete agreement by anyone on the document as a whole. All the members of the Round Table agreed to participate in this exercise without prejudice to their personal views. The document does not represent a consensus on the part of those involved in formulating it. Not everybody has agreed on everything that is in this document. Indeed, some may not agree with the document at all.’

It is important that this statement be carefully noted since a recent newspaper report (Sunday Express, October 25) has stated that: ’Prime Minister Patrick Manning says he has no desire to become the nation’s executive president as proposed in the working document for the latest draft constitution prepared by a round table of scholars (my italics) operating out of his Office’ might give the impression that the Document was authored by the members of the Round Table. It should also be noted that the Prime Minister has been publically supporting major proposals in the Document which was considered by Cabinet on January 6, 2009; on the outside back cover of the Document is the statement: Text prepared by the Office of the Prime Minister.

As stated by the Prime Minister there are views in the Document to which both members of the Round Table and Government subscribe. Indeed it would be very strange if this were not so since most provisions in the Document are exactly the same as the provisions in the present (1976) constitution. However, it is with a relatively small number of changes (which I set out below) with which I, and perhaps many others, will have serious disagreement.

I have a further issue with the Document and that is that many difficulties in our present constitution have not been addressed. In the many articles that I have written in the Express on the constitution I have made suggestions for amendments to our present constitution. Regrettably the amendments that I had proposed to address problems that may have arisen are not provided for in the Document. I shall reiterate them as I proceed with the discussions in this series.

My opinion is that our problems stem from deficiencies in our political parties and their leadership, rather than in the constitution. Indeed whatever constitution we may devise could be frustrated by the political parties and the actions of their Leaders. Nevertheless we have to circumscribe our leaders by devising constitutional arrangements so as to keep them on the straight and narrow path. This we can best do by examining our existing constitution carefully and making appropriate amendments.

I have repeatedly expressed the view that what is needed is not a new constitution but amendments to our present constitution in the light of its operation over the last 33 years I have not seen: (1) any assessment of our present constitution that shows deficiencies that cannot be addressed by amendments; (2) proposals for a new constitution that show superior merit to our present one. Ethnic issues that dominate our politics cannot be solved by constitutional changes alone.

A radical change would mean that we would need to go through the teething process again as no doubt new problems would show up in a new constitution. There would probably then be calls for another constitutional reform!

I shall list what I consider to be the major changes from our present constitution that are proposed in the Document: (1) removal of the present post of ’ceremonial’ President and of the post of Prime Minister and the replacement of these two posts by a post of ’executive’ president with new procedures for appointment to this post; and the creation of a post of Vice-President; (2) changes in the way in which the Cabinet is appointed; (3) changes in the composition of the Senate; (4) changes in the way that the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary is managed; (5) changes in the structure and responsibilities of the Service Commissions which deal with appointments to the Public service and other publically funded bodies; (6) changes in the relationship between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecution; (7) appeals to the Caribbean Court of Justice and not to the Privy Council; (8) changes in Local Government.

I shall discuss these issues in articles to follow. This has become more urgent with the report that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have agreed that constitutional reform shall take place in this term of Parliament.