Constitutional reforms risk undermining independence – unions

The Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados (CTUSAB) has come out forcefully against the government’s proposed constitutional amendments, warning that the reforms are being advanced without adequate public consultation and could erode the independence of key state institutions.

CTUSAB General Secretary Dennis DePeiza warned that the amendments required deeper national consultation before Parliament moved ahead. His comments followed Tuesday’s introduction of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill by Prime Minister Mia Mottley. The bill would allow lawmakers to elect a Speaker from outside the House, adjust constituency ranges, and permit ministers to address the Senate to explain legislation.
DePeiza said the proposals could not be justified simply on the basis that they appeared beneficial.

“No, you can’t just want it because it’s good. We believe very strongly that the whole issue of the changes to the Constitution should not be taken lightly,” he told reporters. He added that constitutional amendments affecting Barbados’s Westminster system required careful scrutiny.

“In a government system that we practise in the Westminster model of governance, when we have these types of changes to the Constitution, which they call overnight changes, without ventilating them to the public and to get feedback, I think that’s a short-change in the public awareness.”

DePeiza said CTUSAB supported the principle of an independent speaker.

“I think the idea of having an independent speaker is a good idea, nothing wrong with that…” he said. However, he took strong issue with the provision that would allow government ministers to enter the Senate to advocate for measures under debate.

“But I don’t like the idea of people, ministers, being able to go in the Senate as they like to put their case, because that, to my mind, can heavily influence the final decision-making of a body that is supposed to have its decision-making, people who are appointed by the president and so forth, to go in there and to be able to look objectively at something, if we are influenced by somebody who wants to come and push the agenda, I think that’s not a move that should have been entertained, and I hopefully believe that somehow along the way we can even push back on it.”

He also rejected the proposal that a Speaker from outside the House would still be selected by the prime minister. “Wrong move. It should never be the prime minister,” he said. “It can’t give any independence, the prime minister who is going to appoint somebody, because the prime minister can appoint somebody who he or she believes would more or less have a little favour of their interests.”

DePeiza said the authority to appoint an independent Speaker should lie with the president, acting in the national interest. “As we move to a new president, he should make that call,” he said, adding that the decision must reflect a commitment to impartiality.

(SZB)