WE HAVE carried as Letters of the Day certain concerns raised by Dr. Lloyd Barnett (June 12) about the Bill for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the quick response of Attorney-General A.J. Nicholson (June 13) because of the great national importance which is attached to this matter. A follow-up letter by Dr. Barnett was also run on the Letters Page on June 14.
Lloyd Barnett is one of the country's leading constitutional lawyers and human rights advocates; Arnold Nicholson, as Attorney-General, is principal legal adviser to the Government. He is also Minister of Justice.
Beyond the legal technicalities of parliamentary procedure for constitutional amendments raised by Dr. Barnett, we share his view that the public must have a say in constitutional amendments. In a real sense, fundamental rights and freedoms constitute the heart of a constitution. The fundamental purpose of government is to guarantee and protect these fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and to provide redress for breaches.
The chapter on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Jamaica Independence Constitution (Chapter III) has remained without amendments and is to be the subject of major overhaul under the Bill, "An Act to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica to Provide for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms", tabled by the Prime Minister on April 30.
Doubts about the "constitutional validity" of current procedure were what prompted Dr. Barnett's letter. Even as the press exchanges were being carried on, the Opposition forced a suspension of the debate on the Bill almost immediately after its tabling by the Prime Minister citing "fundamental problems" with it. Fundamental rights and freedoms are deeply entrenched in the constitution and thus require a two-thirds majority as well as prescribed periods of delay in debate for amendments. The support of the Opposition, at least in Senate, is therefore an absolute necessity.
Mr. Seaga claims paternity for the Charter of Rights and in the politicking surrounding the issue, public discussion in the interests of citizens is of even more vital importance. One of Dr. Barnett's most troubling claims is that a previously tabled version of the Bill "departed substantially from the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission [the appointed agency for public consultation], the Joint Select Committee of Parliament and the approval of these Reports by Parliament itself". How the present version stacks up against years of previous consultations and parliamentary debate is a matter for examination. Part of the controversy is whether this is even a new Bill or the re-tabling of the 1999 Bill.
The nation will be better served on such a truly fundamental issue if we proceed slowly and thoroughly with very careful attention to the fine details of procedure. Despite problems in practice, there is no crisis of constitutional rights and freedom which must be addressed in haste after 40 years without change.
