Constitutional reform stalemate not surprising

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am not surprised at the seeming stalemate regarding the constitutional reform process. I caught Minister Malahoo Forte’s comments at Wednesday’s post-Cabinet press briefing and wrote down this statement she made at the end.

“Procedural justice is as important as substantive justice, and we cannot rush to impugn the integrity of processes because some want a certain outcome here and now.” For me, as a middle-age citizen wanting to learn and engage, the problem was precisely about process, not merely outcome.

Why is it this process was not being handled by the Ministry of Justice that had a department already mandated to handle constitutional matters, and could handle this process with additional budget support. Instead, we went through the process of establishing a new ministry, slowing the process and making it significantly costlier. Was that procedural justice?

From day one, the process was compromised by giving a political representative the chair of the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC). That simply lacked wisdom. It was further compromised when the process began with the minister’s public statement on All Angles that public consultation was not needed, as that was already done from the 1990s. Could we expect either procedural or substantive justice from one who did not see the injustice in that?

When the minister finally saw the light regarding consultation, did we get procedural justice in the formation of a representative committee? No. We got representatives picked by the Government for the youth, the church and civil society. When the public said the CRC was not representative, it had too many lawyers, was representation widened to build confidence in the process? No.

To ensure the “procedural justice” goal was being met, did anyone probe the absence of reports from the reps meeting with those they were asked to represent?

Was there procedural justice when the media and the public’s call for a publicised schedule of public engagement yielded nothing? When the public complained that they did not know enough to engage the process, and some asked for time to have real public awareness, did the process facilitate that request? Some called for more transparency in order to build public confidence in the process. Despite agreement, public access to the CRC minutes was delayed by months at a time.

Finally, when the prime minister decided to change the constitutional provisions that speak to the director of public prosecutions, he completely bypassed the CRC that he put in place to treat with such reform and reverted to the minister of justice to push same through the House. What trust was left evaporated, as I realised this process is not designed to be citizen-centric, it is not about us.

Minister Malahoo Forte might be right that the Opposition is seeking an outcome that is ‘their way or the highway’ but to some of them have been on that highway.

SIENNA HART

Brown’s Town

St Ann