Letter of the Day | Desist from false narrative about Constitutional Reform Committee

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Peter Espeut, in his article ‘More ginnalship: creating a monarchy’, published on May 24, began with a false and disparaging statement. He described the members of the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) as a “bunch of political appointees representing the party in power”. Although the members of the CRC were appointed by the Cabinet, in addition to those who were appointed on the nomination of the leader of the Opposition, there are several of us who do not represent the party in power but are recognised as members of civil society generally.

Mr Espeut then proceeds to condemn the members with “ginnalship” in respect of the recommended procedure for the appointment of the president. ‘Ginnalship’ has the connotation of deception or dishonesty. The procedure for the appointment of the president was discussed at great length by the CRC with the full participation of the nominees of the leader of the Opposition. The procedure which was finally recommended in the report of the CRC was agreed to by all members of the CRC, including the nominees of the leader of the Opposition. In fact, the focus of the CRC was to ensure as far as possible that the ultimate appointee as president had bipartisan support. However, in an atmosphere of partisan political dispute and absence of consensus, it would be necessary to have a mechanism for a final resolution of the differences. This is what the CRC sought to produce.

As regard the composition of the Senate, the CRC made it clear that any changes made should not remove the need for at least one senator appointed by the leader of the Opposition to support a bill for the amendment of entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The CRC does not agree with Mr Espeut’s assumption that the senators appointed by the president would be supportive of the prime minister. Nevertheless, the CRC recommended that the three independent members appointed by the president would not have a vote on such bills. This is specifically stated in paragraph 7.3.1 of the CRC’s report.

The CRC has since confirmed that it will support any numerical configuration which preserves this safeguard.

As regard public education, the Constitution itself lays down three-month intervals between the first and second readings, as well as the second and third readings of the bill, so as to ensure public consultation. What the CRC has indicated is that before the drafting of the bill is completed and it is introduced in Parliament, the processes of public education and engagement in respect of the proposed reforms will be intensified.

As a person committed to the completion of our decolonisation at the earliest time that is reasonably practicable, I appeal to all well-thinking Jamaicans to consider the recommendations of the CRC carefully, and to make responses which are rational and not characterised by personal attacks.

LLOYD BARNETT

Civil Society Advocate