Analyst: Confusion over constitution reports

Political analyst Dr Bishnu Ragoonath says he is uncertain whether the proposals in the report of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform were the ones rejected or accepted by the PNM at its special convention on Sunday.

The committee was chaired by former Speaker Barendra Sinanan, SC. Submissions were gathered from members of the public at several town hall meetings nationwide and by e-mailed and written submissions.

Speaking to Newsday by phone on August 19, Ragoonath, who said he had not read the Barendra Sinanan report in its entirety, said his impression was that the Constitutional Reform Commission was an advisory committee which tried to solicit responses from the public to come up with proposals which could go forward for consideration.

“A lot of what is said in there is still open for debate. It is not necessarily that these are firm recommendations."But,he added, "I’m not sure if I misinterpreted it. The impression being given is that this is a working document to go forward with."

He said what was more important was that the document seemed to be a working paper for the PNM which was discussed at a special convention it held on Sunday, rather than a national consultation on the way forward on constitutional reform.

“I am at a loss. I’m not saying what is in there is not useful, but I am gathering this is being used more as a PNM political instrument, rather than being a national instrument which would have amalgamated the views not only of the PNM and the 700-plus people who would have submitted suggestions for consideration."

Ragoonath said he had submitted issues of concern he thought the committee should take into consideration.

“I did not understand this was going to be the final document, but rather would be used as a jumping-off point for real discussions. But I don’t know. I’m looking forward to the media enlightening us on that.”

PNM general secretary Foster Cummings, speaking at the convention at NAPA on Sunday, said the party had convened an internal committee in January, led by Keith Scotland SC.

The PNM’s committee consulted with its Youth League, Women’s League, Legislative Group and Tobago Council. Some party committees such as the PNM’s Education Committee, and individual party members also submitted position papers and opinions for consideration.

A report was prepared and presented to the general council on August 15 and presented to the PNM’s membership on August 18.

The party committee also gave its recommendations on the Report of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform, which was also published on August 15.

Ragoonath asked, “Who came up with the list that allowed the PNM to accept certain things and reject certain things? From what I saw published, the PNM has rejected things like no fixed election date and so on. My question (is), who submitted that in the first instance? Is that from (us), the public? Or did the PNM select it for themselves and reject it for themselves?

"As far as I’m aware, the advisory committee report only came out on Wednesday.

“I’m not sure how my submission would have been treated, particularly so when that report only came out on Wednesday and the PNM had a meeting on Wednesday and we are hearing where they have rejected certain things already.

"I don’t know what they have rejected. Is it that they have rejected some of the proposals coming from the Barry Sinanan committee report?

“If the Constitution Reform Committee report was only made public on Wednesday and the PNM had its convention yesterday, were the PNM made privy to the report before it was made public in order that they had that convention yesterday? On what basis was that convention on constitutional reform about? Is it the Barry Sinanan report, or some other report? I don’t know.”

Ragoonath said the committee was not non-partisan, as it was made up of people selected by the PM.

“It was not a committee that was done in consultation with the Opposition, it was a prime ministerial committee, and it came up with certain proposals. The PM came up with that listing of people, so I don’t understand how it could be a non-partisan committee.

"What made them non-partisan? One politician from one party appointed them.”

On Sunday, the PM defended the independence of the Reform Commission members and the report they produced, saying the only person who was a member of the PNM was chairman Barry Sinanan.

Ragoonath said he had heard the PM say there would be a constitutional reform conference in November.

“The existing Constitution tells us there must be a special majority to amend the Constitution. If he’s saying the Opposition did not participate in the process, I don’t know how he’s going to get the Opposition to agree so we can amend the Constitution.”

He asked whether the PM was proposing only to attend to the areas where a simple majority was needed.

“Until all the sections of the society are willing to talk like mature adults, we are going nowhere far. We can’t change the existing Constitution unless we have bipartisan support.

"Only if the PNM can say it’s going to win 30 out of the 41 seats in the next election, they can amend the Constitution. Otherwise I’m not sure how they’re going to do it.”