Letter of the Day | Dismissive behaviour fuelling concerns

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing in response to the article ‘Malahoo Forte: The law allows for tabling, taking of bill in one day’ published on Saturday, August 5, in The Gleaner.

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 ruling party 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 minister of legal and constitutional affairs and 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 minister 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) – who is appointed, and not chosen by 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 process – or falling short in explaining why it has been bypassed – heightens such misunderstandings. Compounding these suspicions is the DPP, who stands to gain immediately from such amendments.

The Jamaican Constitution expressly promotes a meticulous and deliberative process, ensuring that proposed amendments undergo rigorous scrutiny and extensive debate by members of parliament. It also affords the public the chance to voice their perspectives on the planned revisions. One has to wonder if the constitutional affairs minister 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.

Her 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” – all these downplay the worries of those observing these acts of political manoeuvre. Such dismissive behaviour fuels concern rather than alleviating it, underscoring the need for transparent actions, diligent governance, and a respectful handling of citizens’ voice.

MARIO WOODS