Opposition Member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform Anil Nandlall is of the firm view that the Constitutional Reform Consultative Commission Bill is a mere façade and its referral to the committee a charade to quell public pressure.
The Bill which was sent to the Committee over a year ago has had no significant work done as the committee has not met. During the 2019 Budget debate each side of the House blamed the other for this failure with Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo stressing that the opposition members were absent from a meeting called just days before.
Noting that both sides of the House have in principle committed to constitutional reform, Stabroek News asked Nandlall what efforts the opposition had made to realise this commitment.
“We have to accept the reality that government holds majority in the committee. The business of the Committee has to be pushed by government with the Chairman as the driving force. I cannot write to parliament and say I want the committee to meet. What I can do is continuously engage the press which I have done,” he responded.
According to the former Attorney General while his party remains committed to constitutional reform the “process” is of paramount importance and must be broad-based.
He stressed that the framework of the bill is on designed to fail since its passage requires a two third majority in the House.
“The Bill before the committee gives government the power to appoint a preponderance of members on this Commission. The President gets to appoint here and there and everywhere” he noted stressing that his party is unlikely to support such a design.
According to the Bill the 15 members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President and include four members, in his own deliberate judgment after conducting such consultations as he sees fit, two constitutional law experts; one retired judge; one law tutor and 11 other members, being nominees of entities. Of this 11, one nominee must be from each of the parliamentary parties; one from the Trade Union movement; one from organisations representative of youths in Guyana; one from the Guyana Bar Association; one from the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers; one each from the Christian, Muslim and Hindu organisations; one from the organisations representative of the women in Guyana; and one from the National Toshaos’ Council.
The bill further provides that where an entity fails to make a nomination the President shall appoint a member to represent that entity after due consultation.
Nandlall also took issue with the fact the Schedule of the Bill specifically identifies the areas where consultations shall occur.
According to the Bill to ascertain the views of the people of Guyana the Commission shall conduct public consultations with the people of Guyana in each of the areas (amounting to 100) in the 10 administrative regions of Guyana mentioned in the Schedule.
The Schedule then specifically mentions Mabaruma, Port Kaituma, Matthews Ridge and Santa Rosa Mission in Region 1 as well as Charity, Anna Regina, Suddie and Supenaam in Region 2. Specific areas are also mentioned for the eight other regions with Region 3 receiving a total of 18 consultations, Region 4 a total of 28, Regions 5 and 6 are each allotted 12 consultations, Region 7 is set to have four while eight will be held in Region 8 and five each in Regions 9 and 10.
“If you look at the areas identified it limits the views that can be received by the Commission and sets the stage for recommendation which might not be comprehensive,” Nandlall argued.
