The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

CONSTITUTIONAL Commission Chairman Sean McWeeney thinks the framers of the country’s supreme law would have avoided making it so difficult to amend the document if they foresaw how challenging it would be to pursue constitutional change.

The work of another Constitutional Commission appears to have come and gone, performing exhaustive research along the way without any sign that its work will produce practical results.

The commission’s 248-page report, released in 2013, came several years after another well-researched report by the Adderley-Tynes commission was released to the public.

“The commission is waiting for some indication as to what the powers that be, the government and opposition, would wish to see happen,” Mr McWeeney told The Tribune on Monday. “Do they want to see it put on ice now or move to a new agenda? There’s not much time left in the current cycle. The odds are low that another referendum will be held before the next general election.”

Most provisions of the Constitution are either entrenched or specially entrenched, meaning that in addition to requiring a referendum, they respectively require two-thirds and three-quarters of each House of Parliament to pass the bills that would amend the law.

Reforming the requirements for constitutional change was among the commission’s recommendations in 2013, although Mr McWeeney believes there is no chance Bahamians would have voted in favour of it.

“It’s a major hindrance,” he said. “If the framers could’ve seen just how high that puts the bar, they would’ve avoided it.”

With the June 7 referendum failure, some fear that other important changes will not see the light of day.

Popular reforms that would have mandated greater transparency and accountability in government were among those that the commission recommended, for instance.

They included a constitutional requirement that laws be created for the “establishment, regulation and funding of political parties.”

The group also recommended the creation of a “mechanism for members of Parliament to be accountable to their constituents for the performance of their duties” and to be overseen by an agency like the Integrity Commission.

Although the Christie administration never indicated that it supported such recommendations, the failure of the June 7 referendum likely means these issues and the pursuit of them will be placed on the backburner, although ordinary legislation could bring much of them into fruition.

“One of the more substantial changes would’ve involved the devolution of the attorney general’s power through the Department of Public Prosecutions,” Mr McWeeney said. “Though it’s substantial, it doesn’t require a referendum. It didn’t appear to me that there was much interest from either the government or opposition for it. It’s not that they disagreed with it. I just don’t think they saw it as being something particularly pressing.”

Mr McWeeney said he doesn’t feel his time as chairman of the commission was wasted, noting that its recommendations were substantive enough to serve as a blueprint for constitutional change for generations to come.

“There’s temptation to feel like time was wasted,” he said. “I don’t feel that way. It’s a learning experience for the country and reminder that the people are the bosses.”