Barbadians have lambasted the Constitutional Reform Commission’s (CRC) report as “embarrassing” and “antiquated”, accusing it of failing to address crucial modern issues and lacking innovative thinking.
The criticism came during a consultation at the Frank Collymore Hall, where citizens demanded more progressive reforms and greater public engagement in the constitutional process. Citizens voiced concerns about the document’s lack of innovation and its omission of key issues such as term limits, the “right to die”, and mechanisms to address public petitions.
One of the attendees, Norma Springer, described the draft constitution as “embarrassing” and criticised it for reflecting what she called “antiquated colonial thinking”.
“The Academy [and the youth] has been absent. There is no innovative creative thinking in this constitution. I am embarrassed.”
She added: “We boast of being the newest republic, but we have produced an antiquated new constitution. The intellectual depth is absent . . . It reads like a report that was due the night before.”
Springer went on to highlight the omission of controversial topics such as capital punishment and voluntary euthanasia: “Our Constitution in the 21st century chooses to remain silent. There is now the right to die, and this is something we should be examining as a brand-new republic.”
Her frustration further extended to the lack of mechanisms for citizen engagement.
Calling for citizen committees to play a role in decision-making processes, Springer said: “People of Barbados are petitioning every day. . . What is the point of signing these petitions when there is no process that forces state institutions to address them?”
The consultation, chaired by retired judge Christopher Blackman, was intended to allow members of the public to ask questions and give feedback on the contents of the report, including its recommendations.
Blackman explained that the document incorporates submissions from the public, government, opposition, and other stakeholders, as well as recommendations from the 2021 Charter of Barbados.
“The fundamental rights and freedoms should apply to all persons in society and not only the state, this concept, known as the horizontal application of rights, has been recommended for inclusion in the Constitution,” Blackman said in his address.
He also noted recommendations to strengthen oversight institutions like the Integrity Commission and Human Rights Commission, which, he said, must be “fully staffed and equipped to function effectively”.
Some participants felt these proposals did not go far enough.
Former president of the Democratic Labour Party and the DLP’s current spokesperson on crime Verla De Peiza questioned why submissions supporting parliamentary term limits were rejected by the commission.
Noting that she was speaking as a citizen of Barbados, she said: “The business of running a country is too serious to be arbitrary.
“I’m wondering why, in an exercise that is intended to lean on the people of Barbados, proposals supporting a term life for Parliament, being the majority of the submissions received, were rejected by the commission.”
Concerns were also raised about judicial appointments, with another citizen, Fallum Best, criticising what he described as an over-reliance on Barbadian judges in a small society.
He argued: “Barbados has been told it has the highest rate of overturn in the CCJ. If we don’t have more judges being appointed from outside of Barbados, perhaps from Canada, India, or the Commonwealth, we will continue to face challenges.”
Despite the criticism, the commissioners gave assurances that they remained open to feedback. Blackman said: “The door for public submissions and recommendations is not closed.” They further urged Barbadians to continue voicing their opinions as the process moves forward. (SM)
The post Barbadians criticise ‘antiquated’ constitutional reform proposals appeared first on Barbados Today.
