Latest update April 28th, 2026 12:30 AM
Are foreign interests driving the haste for constitutional reform?
Dear Editor,
Our constitution is the supreme law of our country. Its provisions not only seek to capture our aspirations, ideals and national goals but most importantly, are aimed at regulating public affairs and the role and responsibility of public officials and institutions. It lays the foundation for inclusive democratic governance for our country. Academics and jurists alike have often described constitutions like ours, as organic and alive. I subscribe to this view. Therefore, like any other law, nay, more than any other law, our constitution must necessarily remain dynamic and under constant review with a view of reform, so that it can adapt to meet the exigencies of a changing and evolving society.
Therefore, the nature and magnitude of constitutional reform must be driven and determined by the society itself, in which the constitution operates. I apprehend that the reform contemplated by the calls to which I have referenced, are manifold and of a fundamental nature. The last major set of constitutional reforms occurred in Guyana, in 2001, where about 200 fundamental changes were made to the then constitution.
Has our society evolved so drastically, over the ensuing 17 years, to precipitate the monumental constitutional reforms which are now being contemplated? I do not see cogent and compelling reasons being advanced for constitutional reform. Neither do I see efficacious proposals of the reform themselves. In my view, only when these two sets of information become available for scrutiny, that one can make an informed decision on the matter. Therefore, I have questions.
Are we being pushed to constitutional reform because of foreign influence? Have we convinced ourselves that our constitution and the breadth of its provisions do not meet the needs of the people of Guyana and are therefore, ineffective and unworkable?
When we consider constitutional governance, we are really looking at obedience by our leaders to the rule of law. When therefore, public officials comply with constitutional measures and prescriptions, there is no room for a challenge to their actions on the ground of a want of constitutionality. However, problems arise, when public officials either deliberately, or out of ignorance, violate the provisions of the constitution.
It is in these circumstances that some are wont to say that provisions of our constitution are ineffective and unworkable. I, however, respectfully submit that deliberate violation of, or non-compliance with, the provisions of the constitution in governmental affairs by public functionaries do not equate to ineffectiveness or unworkability of the scheme of our constitution, justifying an ill- considered rush to constitutional reform.
So the constitution insulates the Service Commissions from any direction or influence from any other body or authority. However, it is now public knowledge that in two successive years, two different Ministers of Government, wrote to two different service commissions, purporting to issue directions to them from His Excellency, the President, not to proceed with the discharge of their constitutional duties-a clear violation of the Constitution. Does this render the constitution ineffective and unworkable, to justify its reform? I think not. And on this particular issue, what are we reforming the constitution to achieve? Would it be to remove the protective insulation with which these Commissions are clothed, so that they can actually be directed and influenced by extraneous bodies and authorities? I hope not.
I am not oblivious to the fact that one major component of the reforms which is being canvassed, seeks to constitutionalise an arrangement for executive power sharing between and among the major political parties of the country, a most noble ideal, indeed. But do the level of maturity, trust and magnanimity, which are the prerequisites for such an arrangement to work, exist in our political environment?
Let us quickly examine two instances to appreciate what the current realities are. There is no greater constitutional expression of political power sharing in our current constitutional matrix, than firstly, the appointment of the Chief Justice and Chancellor of the Judiciary and secondly, the appointment of a Chairman of GECOM.
In respect of all these appointments, the Constitution mandates processes which require the pivotal input of both the Leader of the Opposition and the President. In respect of the two judicial appointments, they require the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, before the President can appoint. Since this provision was introduced into the Constitution in 2001, no appointment has ever been made. Successive Leaders of the Opposition withheld their agreement from the appointment of the incumbent holders of those Offices. Not a reason was ever given!
In relation to the appointment of a Chairman of GECOM, a list of six names must originate from the Opposition Leader to the President, for him to select one for appointment. 18 names have been submitted by the Leader of the Opposition over the last nine months. An appointment is still to be made. A hitherto seamless and straight-forward constitutional process has suddenly become complex, complicated and controversial. Simple and clear language of the Constitution has suddenly become obscure, ambiguous and unequivocal.
Those are our current realities. Whether executive power sharing can work in this atmosphere, is anyone’s guess. Hence, it is my view, that at this juncture, the need for constitutional compliance trumps the need for fundamental constitutional reforms.
Anil Nandlall
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
One thought on “Are foreign interests driving the haste for constitutional reform?”
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
“Simple and clear language of the Constitution has suddenly become obscure, ambiguous and unequivocal.”
To attach today’s interpretations to the constitution and totally disregard the intentions of the framers is a recipe for gridlock. Any fool reading the constitution on the requirements for the Chairmanship of GECOM can clearly see there was a preference by the framers for a person with a judicial temperament. Can you tell us what is a fit and proper person? Are you au fait with the immunity protections from any prosecution afforded the President during and after his tenure? Wasn’t this the constitution that you recommended party supporters boycott during the referendum vote? The executive has too much power and its wings must be clipped.