DE-LINK REFORM, CCJ

While the possibility appears to exist that the Opposition, arising out of a statement by UNC Political Leader, Basdeo Panday, may support the Police Service Reform Bills and legislation for the Caribbean Court of Justice, nonetheless such support for two vital pieces of legislation should not be conditional on constitutional reform. Instead the Opposition United National Congress should de-link Police Service Reform and the CCJ from that of constitutional reform in the interest of Trinidad and Tobago. In turn, specifically with respect to the CCJ in the context of the economic and social advance of this country and the wider Caribbean Community of Nations (Caricom).

This is not to say that we do not recognise the critical importance of constitutional reform, but for the Opposition to continue to demand constitutional reform, or else, is to deny Trinidad and Tobago needed Police Service Reform at a time when fingers of undoubted concern are being pointed at the Police.  In addition, any policy which prevents or unduly delays the setting up of the Caribbean Court of Justice, crucial to the establishment of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy, literally ties the hands of this country behind its proverbial back even as it prepares to enter the around-the-corner Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Admittedly, neither our 1976 Republican Constitution nor its predecessor, the Independence Constitution of 1962 can be said to have evolved. With all due respect to the framers of the 1962 and 1976 Constitutions, both can be correctly described as borrowed clothes fitted out each in a manner to reach out to meet what had been considered our needs at the time. Constitutions either are allowed to evolve or they are imposed on a country by a Party with the Parliamentary clout to do this. Sometimes aspects of a Constitution are introduced by a governing Party with the acquiescence of the Opposition where this is convenient to it. 

A critical component of the 1976 Constitution, which relates to the demitting of Office by a Prime Minister, Section 77 (1), was believed to have been introduced and passed with the support of the Opposition, because then Prime Minister, the late Dr Eric Williams, was fearful that the 1973 experience could have led to his being removed as PM. For the record the 1973 experience relates to Dr Williams’ announcement that he would step down as Political Leader of the ruling People’s National Movement, only to discover a massive undercurrent of support for then Attorney General, Karl Hudson-Phillips to succeed him.

Section 77 (1) provided that although a majority of members of the House of Representatives could vote for a resolution of no confidence in a Prime Minister, the PM rather than risk being replaced could ask the President to dissolve Parliament. A major change which the Opposition UNC would like to have made to the Constitution relates to their hoped for introduction of Proportional Representation (PR). There is the perception that Proportional Representation, under which the first past the post system would be replaced by one which allows for seats in Parliament allotted on the basis of votes received in an election, represents the be-all and end-all of constitutional reform for the UNC. This is being resisted by the other major stakeholder, however, on the ground that it can result in needless psychological hurt to Trinidad and Tobago.

Fellow Caricom Member State Guyana is an example of this.  Meanwhile, the governing Party, the People’s National Movement, has been traditionally opposed to Proportional Representation. Does this mean that the UNC will maintain that any rejection of its argument for PR will result in its continued refusal to support legislation requiring a special majority, including for example Police Service Reform and the Caribbean Court of Justice legislation? Or will the Opposition be prepared to place the interests of the nation and, ultimately, the Caribbean Community of Nations before its own agenda and accept in the process the posture of political parties in other and more developed countries that Constitutions should be allowed to evolve?