President George Maxwell Richards gave an insightful address at the ceremonial opening of Parliament on July 11 that would cause anyone to reflect and give serious thought to important issues that we need to probe and examine if we are ever to reach First World status.
The President's address was not typical of a Head of State where executive power rests with the Prime Minister as practised in democracies such as ours that pattern the Westminster system of governance. In systems like ours, the Head of State is above partisan politics and performs a more ceremonial role. As such the address given by Richards more reflects what those with a presidential system of governance would give, like the President of the US who gives a similar type of address, called The State of the Union address.
His Excellency's address dealt with the promotion of meritocracy as the gauge for employment practices, especially of key positions, when he spoke of appointments at a well-known tertiary institution and the need for constitutional reform to develop a more independent Parliament. He also seized the moment to reaffirm that the Office of President in our jurisdiction is a politically neutral one.
The President was quite right in asking for constitutional reform as certain offices-the presidency, the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and others appointed by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission-while aptly insulated from political interference, still need to be accountable to the public when errors are made, especially personal errors. Under our system of governance, the Cabinet is collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.
Take the Integrity Commission for example. All of its members are appointed by the President acting on his own discretion and not on the advice of the head of the Executive. Between 1988-2003, there were only two chairmen who were judicial officers. From 2003 to present, we are on to the fifth chairman of the commission, who is a very successful businessman and entrepreneur, but none of the chairmen during this time has been judicial officers as had been the case in the past.
One appointment to the post was that of a well-known Roman Catholic priest who had to step down because the church's canon law did not permit a cleric serving in such a capacity. In a case like this, when it would appear that an appointment made, upon reflection, was not the best, one has to ask who should be held responsible and how.
Under our current constitutional arrangements, the person making the appointments is answerable to no one. Similarly, another crucial independent office is that of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. While it is a great idea to have this office protected from the political directorate and influence, there are no safeguards to ensure that the office holder is being impartial all the time.
Under our current arrangements, the office holder is typically judged on performance and action by the court of public opinion. In keeping with the President's call for constitutional reform, we may want to consider having a council of prosecutors that consists of a group of people to perform the DPP's role, similar to what obtains in places like Moldova.
We may also need to examine the benefits, advantages and disadvantages of having a President who is a well respected and well accomplished judicial officer; similarly, a well-accomplished professional who is not a judicial officer by looking at all the issues and situations that occurred under every President since we adopted the Republican Constitution in 1976 and had our first President-Sir Ellis Clarke, Noor Hassanali, Arthur NR Robinson and Prof Richards.
This may be a good time to conduct this research and analysis as the term for the current office holder expires in approximately eight months. President Richards' address was quite the impetus we all needed as citizens to reflect and ask ourselves how are we taking ownership and responsibility for what happens to us in this country and come out of the "blame game" syndrome that continues to paralyse so many of us into a state of inaction.
Michael Lijerterwood
Mlijerterwood@yahoo.com