Constitutional Reform Commission Act Should be Revised

Dear Editor

Now that the status quo has shifted, and common sense has seemingly triumphed over folly in clarifying that the composition of the Constitutional Reform Commission, as cited in the Act, includes appointees from the PPP, APNU, and ANUG, I believe it is time for us to go two steps further with additional amendments to the law.

I would propose that the Constitutional Reform Commission Act be revised to grant the Commission a greater semblance of true independence. At present, the Commission functions under the administrative rule of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, with Min. Gail Teixeira being responsible for logistical and budgetary oversight. According to the Act, this means that the Commission’s secretariat and operational matters, such as staffing, budget requests, and general administration, are all coordinated through the Ministry.

While Section 5 of the Act clearly states that “in the exercise of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority,” it is difficult to reconcile that provision with the reality that a Ministry, and by extension, a Minister, holds administrative responsibility for the very body that is supposed to be independent. Further complicating matters is the fact that, under the current composition, several government ministers, including the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance and the Minister of Legal Affairs, were sworn in as members of the Commission itself.

This brings me to a second point that warrants amendment: government ministers and sitting members of Parliament should not be permitted to serve on the Constitutional Reform Commission. Based on the Act, the Commission submits its report to the Speaker of the National Assembly, who then refers it to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform for consideration and debate before recommendations are presented to the full Assembly. The previous Standing Committee comprised nine members, five from the government and four from the opposition, and was chaired by the Minister of Legal Affairs. This arrangement presents an apparent conflict of interest, since the same minister who chairs the committee was also a member of the Constitutional Reform Commission.

In closing, I submit that the Constitutional Reform Commission Act should be amended to:

1. Ensure greater independence by eliminating every avenue for direct or indirect control by any person or authority hence, Section 6 should therefore reflect the spirit and intent of Section 5.

2. Disallow government ministers and sitting members of Parliament from being on the Constitutional Reform Commission, thereby removing any potential conflict of interest or undue influence in matters of constitutional reform.

Yours truly,

Clayon F. Halley