Charter of Barbados under scrutiny

Questions are being raised about the value of the new Charter of Barbados.

The matter came up during an online townhall meeting on Sunday evening, titled Constitutional Reform and the Republic: Perspectives of the Youth and hosted by the Faculty of Social Sciences at The University of the West Indies Cave Hill campus.

Retired High Court judge Christopher Blackman was among those who shared their thoughts on the non-justiciability of the document that was approved by Parliament in November last year, less than a week before Barbados’ transition to a republic.

The Charter of Barbados, while not legally binding, outlines citizens’ rights and responsibilities. It is premised on five articles, the first of which states that all Barbadians are born free and are equal in human dignity and rights.

That first article, in particular, was referenced by political science student Kai Allman who queried its usefulness if there are existing laws that run contrary to the terms of the Charter.

“The Charter should really be serving as the foundation for the social and political change that we see in our new republic. The Charter can’t just be a symbol. When the Charter was passed, it was passed with the thought that it would just serve as a symbol for the Republic.

“However, if it is just a symbol, then it is nothing, because when we look at it and we see that ‘all Barbadians are born free and equal in human dignity and relevance regardless of age, race, ethnicity, faith, class, cultural and educational background, ability, sex, gender or sexual orientation’ but we take a look at another piece of legislation that completely contradicts that, then the Charter is not a symbol of Barbados. It does not reflect the legislation or the Barbadian way of living,” Allman stressed.

Cultural strategist Chereda Grannum characterised the Charter as a symbolic emblem, similar to other national emblems, that articulates the best of Barbados and all that its citizens aspire to be.

Thus, she does not think it needs to be justiciable. However, she said she would not have any challenges if it had to be formalised in a Bill of Rights instrument.

“My position is that is something left to be determined by the appetite of the broader population. I think that is something that should really be set within a context of formal public consultations around the actual reforms that are going to be implemented within the Constitution,” Grannum said.

“But, no, I don’t honestly think that it being in a symbolic form lessens its relevance or its impact. It is everything and it is nothing at the same time; it is as much as we make of it. I think a large part of it being symbolic actually forces us into action in order to make it something of relevance and something of use to us within the context of how we restructure Barbadian society and the relationships that it is premised on.”

Justice Blackman also raised the matter of an amendment to the Barbados Constitution to set a timeline by which the Prime Minister advises elections be called when the House is dissolved.

He highlighted the situation in neighbouring St Kitts and Nevis where Prime Minister Dr Timothy Harris dissolved the Parliament on May 10 and more than two weeks later has yet to announce a date for general election.

“We have a similar provision in the Barbados Constitution where when Parliament is dissolved, there is no timeline by which the Prime Minister advises elections should be called. I think the answer for that really is to put into the Constitution that there should be a limit, no more than 15 days after dissolution, that a date must be fixed. The date can be in the outer limit of the 90 days but a date must be fixed so that that sort of game will not be perpetuated.

“That happened in Barbados in 1994 when Prime Minister [Sir Lloyd] Sandiford dissolved Parliament when he lost the no-confidence motion and it took a little pressure for him to step up the ante and call the election earlier than he had probably planned to do to, but you need to have provision for it,” Justice Blackman maintained. (KC)