Finally!

After years of wrangling, Charter of Rights Bill passed without fanfare.

Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer

Great public cynicism brought about by flagrant political gamesmanship over 20 years, last week robbed the passage of the Bill titled the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the House of Representatives of its historical significance.

It is the first major amendment to the Jamaican Constitution in more than 40 years.

The Bill is now before the Senate, after all 51 members who were present in the lower House last Tuesday voted for its passage.

Just under two decades ago, there was much talk in the lead-up to the Budget Debate of 1991 about the need for a Charter of Fundamental Rights to replace Chapter Three of the Jamaican Constitution.

Political controversy

But since then, the Pratt and Morgan Privy Council ruling, the Caribbean Court of Justice, the entire issue of capital punishment, and a change of administration got in the way and the Charter of Rights Bill became entangled in one political controversy after another.

On May 21, 1991, the matter was placed on the parliamentary and public agenda by then leader of Opposition, Edward Seaga. He argued in his budget presentation that: "the framers of the constitution of our great neighbours to the north (the United States) provided for the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms as they saw them - freedom of speech, assembly, worship, among other things".

However, Seaga contended that Jamaica did not add any provisions that were peculiar to its circumstances.

At the time, Seaga declared with great fervour: "Conquer this problem and we remove a vast area of conflict in society, unleash a great fund of goodwill, create a real basis of personal security and build new foundations of true justice for all."

That was nigh 20 years ago.

The Michael Manley administration, prior to that, indicated that it would open discussions to the public on the matter of constitutional reform. However, Seaga called for the establishment of a forum to be called a Constituent Assembly, comprising representatives of varied interest groups in addition to the political trade unions, business, church, professional bodies, teachers, and rural community leaders.

Manley agreed and the multi-dimensional talk shop that was set up to discuss and deliberate on constitutional reform was called the Constitution Commission of Jamaica. The commission was first chaired by the late Justice James Kerr.

But then the first obstacle to the prepared Charter surfaced. Kerr did not include in his report the issue of the Charter of Rights. Seaga was sorely displeased and Kerr stepped aside, after a brief public fuss.

Kerr was replaced by noted constitutional lawyer, Dr Lloyd Barnett, who prepared a second report focusing on Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

A joint parliamentary committee chaired by David Coore, one of the two living members of the framers of the original Constitution of 1962, was established in 1992 to exa-mine the recommendations contained in the two reports of the Constitutional Commission. Seaga is the other living member.

But then, Manley retired and P.J. Patterson assumed the helm of Government and the People's National Party, and the focus changed somewhat.

Hasty seaga

Although Seaga had said in 1991 that constitutional reform should not be rushed, he seemed to have been in a haste to have the provision, which he said should be framed in easy-to-read and remember language, in the Constitution.

The general elections of 1993 came and Patterson got his mandate, but it wasn't until 1995 that a new parliamentary committee was established to work on the reform programme.

Another general election came and went in 1997 and not much was heard about the Charter. Then on July 20, 1999, Patterson himself moved a resolution titled: 'An Act to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica for a Charter of Rights and connected matters'.

Seaga retired in 2005 without seeing the Charter for which he had pushed materialise, and it was not until 2009 - under the new Jamaica Labour Party administration that the House of Representatives debated the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Bill.

An obstacle had surfaced in 2007 when the People's National Party members, now in Opposition, proposed a Bill to extend the five-year time limit for death-row inmates, imposed by the Privy Council in the much-publicised Pratt and Morgan judgment of 1993.

In 2009, Prime Minister Bruce Golding, in piloting the Bill, argued that, among other changes, the Charter of Rights' provisions would provide for the entitlement of every citizen who is registered, to participate and vote in free and fair elections, which surprisingly, was not guaranteed in the Constitution.

Golding said the Charter of Rights represented only one part of the constitutional reform programme to which his administration was committed.

But Golding responded by expressing disappointment that the Opposition was calling for a further postponement of the debate.

It would be another two years before the Bill would be passed. The House of Representatives concluded debate on the new Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Bill on Tuesday (November 17, 2010), with five amendments.

However, the Bill had to remain on the table of the House for another three months, before the constitu-tional changes included in the provisions could be approved.

The two-thirds majority vote finally materialised on Tuesday March 22, 2011, without much fanfare.