The failure to put the issue of a runoff vote squarely to the people is of central importance in deciding whether a simple majority or special majority was required to pass the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.The right to vote is a statutory right, having its genesis in the Representation of the People Act.
It is a statutory right in so far as it deals with, inter alia, eligibility to vote, the time and manner of voting, the rules governing political parties and so forth.This is the procedural aspect of the right to vote; but there is more to this right, in my view.
The exercise of the right to vote in contradistinction to the statutory right to vote is at core a species of freedom of thought and expression guaranteed by Section 4 of the Constitution.
Parliament should not legislate to render the act of voting defective of its purpose where, as here, the people have been deprived the opportunity to think about the runoff and express their opinions thereon freely.
The right to vote is a compendious phrase encompassing both the statutory right under the Representation of the People Act and the exercise of that right, which carries with it freedom of thought and expression guaranteed under Section 4 of the Constitution.
I most respectfully disagree with the opinions of those eminent lawyers who contend that a simple majority is all that is necessary to pass the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, more especially in light of the fact that the voice of the people, which has been heralded by the Prime Minister as the voice of God, has not been heard.
No sane society wishes to commit national suicide and this is what this forced legislation has in store for us–confrontation and even violence on a large scale.
Clive Phelps
St Ann's