ANALYSIS
l to provide for consideration a draft Constitution; and l to make recommendations on all matters which in the Commission’s opinion are relevant to the attainment of the aims and objectives of the establishment of the Commission. Clearly, these four tasks, individually and collectively, confer on the CRC a sweeping and boundless mandate to consider and propose any matter whatsoever for inclusion, exclusion, and modification in the new Republican Constitution for Barbados. Further, the warrant of appointment of the CRC provided for two strategic objectives: namely, to consult the people of Barbados, nationally and in the diaspora, on the content of the Constitution and the desirable reforms; and to prepare and disseminate relevant material to widen public knowledge of and interest in the Constitution of Barbados and accordingly, the draft Constitution. In a real sense, then, the CRC is supposed to operate as a conduit between the citizenry and the Government relative to the creation of Barbados’s new Constitution. Reasons for optimism or skepticism? B ased on the foregoing, two issues are clear. Firstly, beyond the broad matters outlined above, the warrant of appointment issued under the CIA is silent on a number of procedural matters, which therefore provides the CRC with tremendous latitude in determining its rules of procedure and modus operandi . This can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the unbridled discretion may be seen as a blessing since it affords the CRC the ability to conduct its proceedings and operations in any manner that it sees fit to optimally fulfill its monumental tasks
Unlike other Constitutional Reform Commissions set up elsewhere in the Commonwealth Caribbean, which have been established by specific pieces of enabling legislation (such as in Guyana and St. Lucia), the CRC was set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act Cap. 112 (“the CIA”) that provides for the President of the Republic to appoint commissions of inquiry as advisory commissions “whenever he deems it expedient in the public interest” to do so. Granted, this mechanism for the establishment of constitutional reform commissions is not peculiar or novel to Barbados given that the CRC’s predecessors – the 1979 Cox Commission and the 1998 Forde Commission – were likewise established under the CIA. The Constitutional Reform Commission has received a sweeping and boundless mandate to consider and propose any matter whatsoever for inclusion, exclusion, and modification in the new Republican Constitution for Barbados. The warrant of appointment of the CRC contains its Terms of Reference and instructions and specifically provides for the CRC to undertake four tasks within a very constrained timeline of 15 months: l to examine, consider and inquire into the Constitution of Barbados and all other related laws and matters with a view to the development and enactment of a new Constitution for Barbados; l to make recommendations to the Government on the reforms that would meet the circumstances of a 21st century Barbados and promote the peace, order, and good governance of the country;
and objectives. On the other hand, the same discretion may be perceived as a curse since it also creates the scope for the CRC to skirt around procedural imperatives that may be necessary, in the public’s interest, for the CRC to properly discharge its mandate. One such procedural imperative is ensuring that all available platforms or avenues are employed for engagement with Barbadians far and wide. Groups and communities whose representation were strikingly excluded from the membership of the Constitutional Reform Commission include the main opposing political parties and the academic and LGBTQIA communities. Secondly, the members of the CRC were selected by the Attorney-General, who was given the overall responsibility for the setting up of the CRC, and therefore, cannot be said to be the result of negotiated broad-based consultation. While the members themselves reflect a wide cross-section of society, including various professional affiliations and encompassing youth, religious and gender diversity, the decision to confine the membership to ten persons carried with it certain limitations. Thus, from the outset, the composition of the CRC faced criticisms from the public with concerns over what is viewed as its fundamentally exclusionary nature. The Rastafarian community, for instance, holds the view that it was objectionable and disrespectful to otracise Rastafarians from the membership of the CRC when other demographics in society are represented. Ras Simba, the spokesperson for the Rastafarian community, expressed his indignation after the launch of the CRC by stating, “W e are here now in 2022 and
CHILL NEWS 34
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs