Law revision under stress

The words “hopelessly inadequate” are used more than once by the Law Revision Commission in its 2002 annual report, laid in the House of Representatives last Friday. The body was set up, under the National Constitution, by the Law Revision Act 1979 and Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2000. Its purpose is to upkeep a Revised Edition of the country’s written laws, soon to be on a database. The body is part of the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Unlike the big changes in law made by the Law Reform Commission, the Law Revision Commission simply makes existing laws more readily accessible and user-friendly.

It has the power to shorten, simplify and clarify any law; consolidate laws; arrange laws in a grouping or sequence; correct grammatical or typographical errors; and omit any laws which were repealed, expired, or incorporated into other laws. But all is not well with the work of the Commission. Since its separation from the Law Reform Commission in 2000, said the report, it has operated in “a nebulous way, without a proper infrastructure, viz an adequate staff and appropriate equipment, to carry out its duties and functions under the Act.” The report said the Commission is doing a “mammoth” law revision project since 2002, due to be done by 2006. The country’s laws will be revised and published as both paper text and CD-ROM.

Being revised are laws spanning the 14 years from 1987 (ie after the last revision of 1986) to 2000. These laws include both Acts and their subsidiary legislation like rules, orders and regulations. In all, some 850 laws are to be included, comprising 45,000 pages. But the Commission complained of inadequate staff and equipment. “The staff position is hopelessly inadequate. Of the 12 approved positions only five have been filled.” The Commission’s Desktop Publishing Unit (DPU), said the report, needed to be boosted by adding two computers, two desktop publishing officers, and two proof-readers. 

“E-mail and networking facilities have not yet been provided at the Law Revision Commission in order to access through the Internet up-to-date information with respect to information technology to enhance the performance of the DPU.”  Moreso one computer was not in proper working order but was constantly crashing, thus resulting in loss of data. The Commission suffered a shortage of space, describing its accommodation as “hopelessly inadequate.”  “The office earmarked for the Secretary to the Chairman, a post which is not yet filled, is used as a storage room, and it is also used by the two proof- readers and a trainee officer who are working in a cramped surrounding. The Junior Secretary shares her office with a Paralegal Officer.”

Moreover, said the Report, the Commission had lost its two allocated offices, four work-stations and a storage room, which were now being used by the Ministry’s Accounting Unit. The Commission was upset it had to make annual reports. “The requirement for the submission of an annual report of the Commission, contained in section 3C of the Law Revision Act and in section 66D of the Constitution, is otiose” (ie — serving no practical purpose).

The report said that unlike other statutory authorities, the Commission had no procedures that needed to be subject to public comment and scrutiny. This is because the Act said that any revised laws should not be deemed to operate as new laws, they explained. The Commission said that after the publication of the new revised editions of the laws in 2006, any annual reports by the Commission would be a “futile exercise” because Commission achievements would be contained in its yearly supplements. The report concluded by urging that the Constitution and Law Revision Act both be amended, to no longer require an annual report by the Commission.