Attorney General Dale Marshall has defended the Government’s constitutional amendment to allow opposition representation in the Senate, insisting the move is to “give those individuals who did not win at the polls, a voice in our affairs”.
As the House of Assembly met on Tuesday at the Worthing Corporate Centre for the first time since the January 19 general elections in which the Barbados Labour Party won all 30 seats, Marshall introduced the first act of the new Parliament – the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2022.
One of the amendments seeks to give the political party with the second-highest votes in a general election – in this case, the Democratic Labour Party – the opportunity to appoint two Senators in a case where there is no Leader of the Opposition.
“We feel it is important that at this time we take some steps to enshrine the deepening of our democracy. There are those who say we are tinkering with the Constitution and that we should leave such matters until we get to the review and the consideration of a new Barbados Constitution. But, Mr Speaker, what happens until then?” the Attorney General questioned.
Marshall said even though the President has discretion under the Constitution to appoint Senators, the amendment would offer guidance in the case where there is no Leader of the Opposition to make recommendations for appointments.
“All that we are saying is that for the purposes of deepening our democracy, we should stipulate that that should be governed by some political nuances,” he insisted.
Last month, the DLP’s interim president Steve Blackett rejected Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s suggestion that the party choose two Senators. He said at the time that Mottley did not have the power to make the offer. However, he subsequently told Barbados TODAY that the party would be monitoring the debates on the constitutional amendments in both houses of Parliament before making a final decision.
The Attorney General on Tuesday said if the DLP rejected the offer, he was sure other political parties who contested the polls would be interested.
“But what is important, Sir, is more concept than the action, because in addition to the matter of appointing senators, the Leader of the Opposition also has a role to play in the appointment of judges and the appointment of various service commissions. The opposition has the right and, in fact, the duty to appoint to the Electoral Commission, a deputy chairman and, I believe, two other members,” he pointed out.
“As the law stands, because there is no Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister has the right to nominate everybody…. But [the constitutional amendment] is about protecting our democracy, and time after time since we have come to government as an administration we have taken decisions which curtail our powers.”
Marshall also addressed the amendments relating to the age of eligibility for the House of Assembly and the Senate. Currently, that age is set at 21.
However, under the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2022, an 18-year-old citizen of Barbados would be qualified to be appointed a Senator; while any person 18 years or older who is a Barbadian citizen and resident is eligible to be elected as a member of the House of Assembly.
This would facilitate the appointment of 18-year-old Barbados Scholar Khaleel Kothdiwala who Prime Minister Mottley has proposed to appoint as a government senator.
Marshall suggested that even in the absence of that proposal, the time had come “to recognise that promising individuals, having achieved the age of majority, should not have an artificial ceiling placed above their heads that would determine how far they could go at the age of 18”.
The Attorney General questioned why 18 year-olds could vote, work, buy and consume alcohol, among other things, yet could not serve in Parliament until they reached the age of 21.
“There is something inconsistent about a country that says that at 18 you have the necessary intellectual depth and personal maturity to be able to select Dale Marshall as your representative but you cannot consider being a representative yourself,” he contended.
“There are many of us who recognise 18 year-olds of great intellect and promise and who demonstrate maturity way beyond their age, and all we’re saying is that when those diamonds begin to show promise at 18, there is absolutely no reason why the opportunity should not be made available to them to serve in those offices.”
(DP)
