A politically motivated choice

THE EDITOR, Madam:

In response to the article ‘Malahoo Forte: The law allows for tabling, taking of bill in one day’, published on Saturday, August 5, 2023, in The Gleaner, I would like to present the following viewpoint:

The Jamaican Constitution does not mandate that a constitutional amendment bill must be tabled and passed within a single day. Such action remains at the discretion of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), who can choose to overlook this approach if they so wish.

Historically, no government has ever employed this tactic, principally due to concerns about probable backlash. It seems that the former attorney general might not comprehend the degree of genuine indignation an approach like this could provoke.

Constitutional amendments often introduce consequential changes to a country’s fundamental constitutional principles and regulations. With this in mind, one would question why the former attorney general is averse to the standard deliberations accompanying such amendments. Their tepid defence concerning the legality of their actions only deepens the problem. Certainly, public interest warrants consideration, particularly regarding offices like the director of public prosecutions (DPP) – a post that operates under appointment, not popular vote.

Utmost transparency is crucial even in actions with noble intentions, as without it, such moves could be misconstrued as political interference. Sidestepping the ordinary process – or falling short in explaining why it has been bypassed – heightens such misunderstandings. Compounding these suspicions is a politically appointed DPP who stands to gain immediately from such amendments, as could the auditor general.

POLITICAL MANOEUVRING

The Jamaican Constitution expressly promotes a meticulous and deliberative process, ensuring that proposed amendments undergo rigorous scrutiny and extensive debate by Parliament members. It also affords the public the chance to voice their perspectives on the planned revisions. One has to wonder if the former attorney general appreciates the value of maintaining this protocol as stated in the Constitution.

It is highly advisable for more Jamaicans to familiarise themselves with their Constitution for a clearer understanding of the procedures involved in enacting constitutional amendments. This understanding brings more clarity to the nuances of such significant matters.

The former attorney general’s casual approach towards these critical issues, supported by frequent bypassing labelled as “ordinary provisions”, and the avoidance of conversations about possible alternative routes – using the excuse of such discussions being suitable for “another place and time” – downplay the worries of every Jamaican observing these acts of political manoeuvring.

Such dismissive behaviour fuels concern rather than alleviating it, underscoring the need for transparent actions, diligent governance, and a respectful handling of the citizen’s voice.

MARIO BROWN