Editorial | A new committee

Mark Golding’s decision to personally assume responsibility for constitutional reform in the opposition’s shadow cabinet suggests that it is an issue behind which he intends to put the full authority of his office. That is, as president of the People’s National Party (PNP) and leader of the Opposition.

It also means that it is Mr Golding who, without go-betweens, will negotiate directly with the Government on constitutional reform matters. Which is on its face a positive development, given the collapse of the previous effort and the need, as this newspaper has argued, for a fundamental reset.

Two actions by Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness, in the aftermath of last month’s general election, give credence to this idea.

First, Dr Holness, who now has a reduced majority in Parliament, removed from his Cabinet Marlene Malahoo Forte, his ill-starred standard-bearer on constitutional reform. Her portfolio was subsumed into Delroy Chuck’s justice ministry.

Then, at his swearing-in, Dr Holness appealed directly to Mr Golding that they work together to advance constitutional reform, albeit his call was limited to transitioning Jamaica from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.

“Mark, let us partner together to complete the work we started on making Jamaica a republic,” the prime minister said.

While this was an encouraging gesture, the question of Jamaica becoming a republic hardly represents the full suite of issues to be addressed in constitutional reform. Neither does it address how matters should be sequenced, or the intellectual and organisational framework within which the reform process ought to be managed.

For instance, while Dr Holness’ government has placed great store on Jamaica becoming a republic, Mr Golding’s party has insisted this should be coupled with Jamaica removing the London-based, colonial-era Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) as its final court, and accede to the civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

SIGNALLING

This newspaper supports Jamaica’s full accession to the CCJ, in whose establishment it had a great hand; whose financing arrangement it helped to pay for; on whose bench its nationals – including the current president – sit; and in which it participates in the court’s original jurisdiction as interpreter of the treaty that regulates the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

Indeed, it is hardly sensible that republican Jamaica could retain that King’s Court in London as its final court. And limited resources make the option of an entirely domestic, third-tier court exceedingly difficult, if it is to be properly resourced.

Given the constitutional reality that the Government can’t proceed on its republican track without the Opposition’s support, the logic of a reform reset is insurmountable. In other words, the deck should be cleared and the process started anew. The efforts of the previous exercise need not be totally lost. Its outcomes can be sifted to determine what from it can be rescued for the reconfigured project.

In that regard, The Gleaner broadly endorses the suggestion of our columnist, Gordon Robinson, for the establishment of a new Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) that is independent of Parliament; which would spend time educating Jamaicans about the present constitution; and which would afterwards embark on genuine public consultations, ahead of drafting a new Constitution. That document, or the sequenced bits, would then go to Parliament for review.

However, politics and government can’t be entirely divorced from this process. Which is where the signalling of the two leaders : Dr Holness’ seeming show, in not fully extending an olive branch, and Mr Golding’s making himself his party’s frontman on constitutional reform – are significant and provide an opportunity for a new momentum.

AREAS OF PRIORITY

Both men must now meet to agree on a credible, broad-based committee, or preferably, the institutions – academic, civil society and political – that would recommend members thereto.

However, it must be explicit that the committee, or commission, will be chaired by someone who is not a politician and who commands widespread respect for her/his expertise and intellect.

Second, the leaders should agree on and signal agreed areas of priority. But there must be no limit on the review that the committee may undertake, or the breadth of the overhaul it recommends. For instance, a genuine separation of powers between the various arms of government, proportional representation, a fixed election date and the right to recall and impeach legislators, must be part of its agenda.

Among the reasons for the failure of the last committee, or its failure to gain greater public buy-in, was public perception of joint chairmen – Ms Malahoo Forte, and a former chief of defence staff, General Rocky Meade, who worked out of the prime minister’s office, first as an ambassador-at-large and then permanent secretary.

Ms Malahoo Forte was perceived as too inflexible and overly sensitive to criticism. General Meade was seen as another face of government.

Removing the control of the committee from Parliament, or a politician, would not be new in constitutional reform. In 1991, when Michael Manley established such a commission, it was chaired by respected, retired Court of Appeal Justice, James Kerr. When the commission was reconstituted in 1993 by Mr Manley’s successor, PJ Patterson, with largely the same members, the constitutional lawyer, Lloyd Barnett, became the chairman.