As the Government is being reminded it should be held to its Manifesto promise to initiate changes to the Constitution to curb Executive excesses, it might be useful to review changes already incorporated by the constitutional reform process initiated in 1999 and implemented in 2000.
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government had initiated the process for constitutional change as early as 1995, when a Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) was formed and hearings were held across the country, as well as in a parliamentary Select Committee. The process was interrupted by the 1997 elections, which the PPP/C won according to all foreign and domestic observers. The People’s National Congress (PNC), however, claimed the poll was flawed and launched massive street protests that segued into ethnically directed riots and violence. The Caricom-brokered Herdmanston Accord of January 17, 1998, included an agreement to complete reform of the 1980 Constitution.
A new 20-person CRC, acceptable to all parliamentary parties, was assembled and included individuals drawn from the widest possible cross-section of society. For six months, the CRC conducted hearings and took submissions from every Guyanese individual or organisation that expressed a wish to do so. Their more than 4000 submissions were reviewed by a parliamentary Joint Select Committee, which then winnowed out and furthered 182 recommendations (drawn from 32 subject areas) to the Oversight Committee of the National Assembly. The final changes were approved unanimously in 2000, by all the parties in the National Assembly, including the PNC. The question must be raised as to why, after 182 alterations were made to the 1980 Constitution, there are now new demands for changes.
The most criticised feature of the 1980 Constitution had been the powers allocated to the President: he was a de facto dictator, who, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, had complete veto power over legislation. He could be President for life and could hire and fire at will most public officials (Art 232) and determine the length of tenure of others whom he might not have even appointed. In the new Constitution, the powers of the President were diminished considerably, while those of the Opposition Leader (who had been derided as ‘Minority Leader’ in the 1980 Constitution) and the Parliament increased.
The President was limited to two terms in office, but this has now been ruled as “unconstitutional”. His power to fire was restricted only to those individuals not appointed by the Service Commissions, but the incumbent has now challenged this rule. On those offices he created, if their salaries are charged to the Consolidated Fund, the appointments must be reviewed by the National Assembly, but this requirement has lapsed.
In critical constitutional appointments such as the Commissioner of Police, the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice, the Opposition Leader’s agreement is necessary for confirmation. It is for this reason that some constitutional offices have been occupied by individuals in an “acting” capacity, when there is no agreement. But experience has shown all of these changes are still tested by Executive overreach, when the consultation has reverted to being perfunctory.
The Elections Commission had been the vehicle for rigging elections in the past, but the President had to now appoint its Chairman from a list submitted by the Opposition Leader. But this is now being challenged by the President, who has insisted on arbitrarily defining the constitutional stipulations. Under the 1980 Constitution, the President merely had to call the Minority Leader and that was considered as a “consultation” to satisfy that requirement. But even though the term “meaningful consultation” has been constitutionally defined to ensure that the President obtains the opinion of the Opposition Leader, in reality the consultation has remained pro forma.
It is clear the powers of the presidency have to be further curbed as a threshold issue: even the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Manifesto demanded this. There is no need to initiate wider changes at this time, since many of the other claimed “shortcomings” of the Constitution are actually the result of Executive overreach.
