NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. [00:00:08] Speaker B: But joining us this morning on our program to speak about it is Doctor Terrence Farrell. Doctor Farrell, good morning to you and welcome to our program. [00:00:18] Speaker C: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. [00:00:21] Speaker B: Oh, it's definitely my pleasure to have you. Let's begin by telling people your role and function in what's going to happen with these constitutional reform meetings. [00:00:31] Speaker C: Okay, well, the committee was established, as you know, back in January. We actually really got going in March. That is to say, we got our website up and running, we got our emails running. So actually the email process is going extremely well. We have to date received over 125 submissions via email from the public. And so starting today, actually, we are taking, we are taking the process out into public consultation, that is, into the communities. We have carded roughly about twelve of these over the course of the next month or so. Beginning in Sangragi this evening at 06:00. Tomorrow we are in point 14 at 06:00. And on Friday we are in port of Spain at the town hall. Also at 06:00. We have a couple of cardio for Tobago, Tobago east and Tobago west, and then all across the country during the course of April. We'll advise people as to the places and dates and so on. But we're starting off this evening in Sangre Grande. And the idea is to get views of the public on the question of constitutional reform, because there are a lot of people, we think, particularly older people, who may not be quite comfortable with using email or social media or responding on Facebook and so on, and who therefore would prefer to come out in person to meet with the committee or members of the committee and to articulate their views in person. And it's something that we welcome, particularly for the older people in the population. [00:02:17] Speaker B: So the intention after all of these meetings and gathering all of this information, these suggestions, what's going to happen? [00:02:28] Speaker C: Good question. So let me just point out that this is the fifth attempt at constitutional reform. As you know, the current constitution we have was basically done in 1976. There were a couple of amendments between 76 and now. But basically the constitution we have is one that was established in 1976 following the Wooding Commission. The wedding commission reported, that is Sir Hugh Wooding. They reported in 1974, a lot of the recommendations they made were in fact not accepted. And therefore the constitution which we operating now does not entirely reflect all of the suggestions that came out of the wooding commission. Then following that, in 1988, under the NAr, you had the Hayatali commission chief Justice Isaac Hayatali had a commission. That commission's work was interrupted by the attempted coup in 1990, and it was never really completed. Then under the Panda administration, there was no reform committee. But there were several important pieces of legislation done under the Pandey administration. The freedom of information act, the Judicial Review act, the Integrity in Public Life act, were all done under the Pandey administration. But all of those pieces of legislation have important constitutional implications. Then around 2006, there are a group of businessmen, actually. So this was an initiative that was not done by the government. It was done by the business community called the principles of Fairness Committee. They had a draft constitution. When that happened, the Manning administration then decided that they would put forward a draft constitution. This was done in 2009. And then under the UNC people's partnership, there was the Ramadan committee in 2013, and they put forward recommendations for constitutional reform. So this attempt is the fifth attempt at reforming, trying to reform the constitution. And what I think it says, all of these attempts dating back to the 1970s, is that the independence constitution, which we have from 1962, that it has set up institutions in our society which are not working particularly well, and we need reform. And I think that the point is that as you see, all the different political administrations, the PNM, the NAR, the UNC, over the years have seen the need to have some kind of reform. And the fact is, as I said, that many of our institutions are in fact not working well. So the public consultations are an opportunity for people to articulate their views on reform. But importantly, I think it's about people being able to connect between the problems that they are seeing on the ground in their communities, whether those problems are bad, roads, landslips, water supply, electricity problems. Crime, of course, is a big issue nationally for the country and so on, that they need to see that there is a connection between those problems that they are experiencing in their communities and the constitution. Because the fact is that when those things are not working, when you're having those kinds of problems in your community, it means that the institutions which are responsible and accountable for delivering on those things are not working well. And many of those institutions are in fact, established under the Constitution. [00:06:07] Speaker B: Constitutional reform, or anything that impacts on the Constitution, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, requires a special majority in parliament. And these proposed amendments which will come out of these consultations will have to go to parliament for them to be debated, adjudicated upon, and eventually voted on. We have real issues in this country with getting that kind of agreement when it comes to a host of different things. And the question that I'm going to ask you here now is based on how realistic it is to get these proposed changes effected and implement. Because at the end of the day, if you have all of these consultations, we've been having consultations for decades, as you've outlined, and we've not been able to have any real of making any of those real when it comes to changing the constitution or amending whatever else. So the question really is, is after this latest round of consultations, how realistic is it that we could possibly have these changes being affected? [00:07:19] Speaker C: Well, I think, I think you're absolutely right that in the previous iterations nothing much has happened or nothing at all has happened, quite frankly, in terms of these efforts. And I'm just speaking of myself, I'm not speaking for the committee here. What has been missing or the missing step in the process is the step of a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention. A constituent assembly or constitutional convention. Essentially what we had in 1962, which is the Queens Hall Conference. And what you do with a constituent assembly is that you bring together the voices from across the country, you bring together the political parties, you bring together civil society organizations, whether it is people who are involved in people with disabilities, people in sporting organizations, the business community, the trade union community and so on, together with the political parties come together as a constituent assembly. The Constituent assembly then essentially reviews the recommendations which would emanate from the work of our committee and would essentially vote on them. And then that Constituent assembly would then indicate to the parliament these are the changes that we want. So the missing step, if you like, in the previous attempts has been that we need to get the people involved in saying to the parliamentarians, this is what we want. And so therefore, I think that's the step. If it's a process where it simply goes to parliament and you're hoping to get a special majority to effect the reforms, then as you quite rightly point out, it is not very likely to happen. [00:08:59] Speaker B: The next question is, on a personal note, I mean, I have a lot of other questions about some of the suggestions you've had thus far and since when is the constitution not serving? And a couple of other things. But there's a question I think that needs to be answered and that deals with you. Yes, you were a member of a committee that was set up by the government to deal with the ecology border, correct? [00:09:26] Speaker C: I was the chairman, yes, you were the chair. [00:09:28] Speaker B: And there were very high expectations of that committee. In fact, you had done a lot of work. The committee had done a lot of. [00:09:34] Speaker A: Work, but we did a lot of work. [00:09:36] Speaker C: Yes. [00:09:37] Speaker B: You, you resigned and you said that you were not satisfied with the progress that the Egab had made. And because of that, you thought that in, in maintaining your professional integrity, you needed to take certain actions, which you did. [00:09:52] Speaker C: Yes. [00:09:53] Speaker B: How confident are you that this initiative is going to bring about action? [00:10:00] Speaker C: Well, this initiative doesn't depend on me. This initiative depends on all of us. It depends on the entire country, depends on the population, indicating to the government, to their political parties, to the civil society, organizations. We need to have reform. You see, it's important for us to understand, I think, that the problems that we are having in terms of resolving the issues around crime and so on, the problems that we have in terms of fixing some of the kind of mundane problems we have, a pothole, roads and water and so on and so forth, they have to do with the fact. We think that has to do with the fact who is running the country? The individual is running the country. The truth is that it is not dependent so much on the individuals who are running the country. It depends on the institutions that we have. And the institutions that we have are not working well. So it doesn't matter who you put inside of there. If you have an institution which is not properly constructed, and institutions that we have, many of them are of colonial construct. Our service commissions, for example, which run or dictate the police service Commission and the Public Service Commission, the teaching service commissions are, in fact, colonial constructs. They were settled by the British in the 1950s, and we kept them in the 1962 constitution, and we kept them in the 1976 constitution, and we have them today. And the result of that is that you have a public service which is not working. You have a police service which is not working. You have a teaching service which is not working. And it is not about who occupies the office of chairman of the Police service Commission and so on. It's not about that. It is that the institutions themselves need to be reformed. You're course, you've got to find the right people and you got to put wrong pegs and wrong holes and so on and square pegs and square holes. But the institutions I'm arguing are not functioning because they have been poorly designed. Many of them are colonial design, and they are not fit for purpose today. In addition to which, there are a bunch of new issues that are coming up. For example, how does the society respond to the whole climate change issue? How does the society respond to issues around the environment? How does the society respond to many things that have happened since 1976, for example, around gender, around the rights of children. Many of those things are not reflected in the current constitution. So it's important for us to update the constitution to reflect what is happening globally. There's a decline of democracy across the world. We are seeing that. Do we want to see that similar kind of trend taking place in Trinidad and Tobago or do we want to ensure and strengthen and shore our democracy at this point in time? Those are the big questions. Those are the fundamental questions. And if I may say, if you're coming back to my position, this issue is far more important, quite frankly, than the work that we set out to do with the economic Development Advisory Board and which work as continuous remain, is extremely important because one of the, the problems that we have, in fact, part of the problem where we are today is that the economic model which we set up from the 1970s when we had the first and second oil price shop, that economic model has run its course. And so, therefore, a lot of the stresses and strains that we are experiencing in the society today as a result of an economic model which itself is broken. So we need to fix that. So there are lots that we need to fix. But I think that the apex problem is in fact the constitution, fixing those institutions in the constitution. And then from there, getting the right people, putting the square pegs and the square holes and the round pegs and the wrong holes. And we ought then to do a lot better going forward. [00:13:57] Speaker B: For those of you who may have joined our conversation midway, we are speaking to Doctor Terence Farrell and of course, we're discussing the National Advisory Committee on constitutional reform and some of the meetings that they're going to be holding and all those things. We'll be taking some of your calls in just a bit. Square pegs and square holes, round pegs and round holes. I remember having a conversation with attorney Larry Lalo some time ago, and he was speaking of a conversation that he had had with some prominent legal figures prior. And one of the discussions was about integrity. Integrity in public life, integrity in making sure that what needs to be done is done the way that it should be done. And the conversation went on to that you cannot legislate integrity. As much as you may want to put measures in place to ensure that people do things the way they're supposed to, that's not something you can necessarily put a law in. You may have consequences for not doing what's supposed to be done. But at the end of the day, it boils down to the individual wanting to uphold what is right and do it the right way. Can we really address some of the problems that we are seeing through constitutional reform? [00:15:16] Speaker C: I think the answer is yes on the integrity question. I think the better way to put it with respect to Larry Lala, who I know, is that legislation is not the only way to achieve integrity. It can't be the only other panacea. So you can't you just put a law in and expect that people are going to respond to that. People have to. Integrity has to come out of people's own beliefs and their desire to do the right thing. And that has to be something that has to be taught. But equally, there has to be accountability, and accountability for two things, accountability for integrity. That is, if people do things that are wrong, then they need to be made accountable. And I should point out here that we have not had a single conviction or even successful prosecution for any white collar crime in this country, as far as I know, ever. But the second area of accountability is accountability for performance. That is to say that if you give, you charge somebody, somebody with office, under the constitution or otherwise, a public servant with responsibility to do something, then they have to be held to account for the performance of the job. Even judges have to be held to account for the performance of their job, not in terms of what they do in the courtroom, the judgments that they make, but they have to be made held accountable for their productivity. For example, if you have judges who are not delivering judgment on time or quickly, or they take too long to give judgment, then they are not doing justice to the litigants who appear before them. And so therefore, they have to be held accountable. Now, in our constitution, there is only one option that you have, which, using judges as an example, you have essentially a nuclear option with a judge. If a judge is not performing, then he's got to be removed. But as the Law Commission, the law association's committee on judicial appointments, which I was part of in 2018, we recommended that there be changes to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission such that that commission would be able to impose intermediate sanctions on a judge who is not performing, who is not delivering judgments, whose behavior outside of the courtroom is inappropriate. And that does not, in my view, conflict with the question of judicial independence. So there are many areas like that, like the judicial, how it is composed, what it does in respect of judges, the DPP, for example, if you look at our constitution, you will see that the director, public prosecutions reports to nobody. He's accountable to nobody. Now, does that, does that make sense? I mean, to my mind, it simply doesn't. So there are many areas that we have where we've got to fix the institutions. The structures here is not fit purpose. And there are other areas where we have the constitution is silent. The constitution then needs to speak. One of the areas that the constitution, I think, which if you go back to the wooding commission, as I said, many of their recommendations were not accepted. And I invite people to go back and read a lot of the things which the wooding commission said which were not accepted by the Eric Williams regime at the time and which resonate today. The wooden commission, for example, pointed out that we, the citizens of the country, have rights. Of course we have rights, and those rights and freedoms need to be protected. But they also pointed out that we have duties and responsibilities as citizens. But that section that they put into their draft constitution didn't make it into the 1976 constitution. And I think that it's perhaps now, after 50 years, that we need to start as a society, begin to reflect on the fact that maybe some of the things that we are seeing manifested today in respect of things like the violence in our schools, our school children fighting and that type of thing and so on, is reflective of a sense where people don't know what their responsibilities are as citizens and what their responsibilities are to each other, to the society, to their parents, what their responsibilities are to authority. And if you go back and you look at what Wooding commission said, I think it's something very valuable that we perhaps need to incorporate into any reform proposals at this point. [00:19:59] Speaker B: We need to take a couple of messages, and after those messages, we'll open the phones just a bit. But one question before that, is there a time frame within which the commission is operating that you need to get all your information collated? [00:20:12] Speaker C: And so we were given a chance to June to produce our report, which is quite feasible, I think many. The wedding commission, for example, took two years, right? But we don't need two years. And I tell you why we don't need two years. Number one, the wedding commission was interrupted by state of emergency and so on. But also, more importantly, the wedding commission didn't have access to email, to Internet or social media and that type of thing and so on. We have that today. So it is much easier for us to garner the views of people today than it was then. The second advantage that we have is that we do have the reports of all of those commissions of the wooding commission, the High tally Commission, the principles of fairness, the Ellis Clark draft from 2009, the Ramadan committee recommendations from 2013. We have all of those, and these people all went out to the communities, they consulted with people. So we are incorporating and taking on board all of the previous reports and recommendations that have been made since 1974. [00:21:18] Speaker B: Yeah, you said something very interesting and I think most times when people speak of constitutional reform, they speak of politics and politicians and things related. And I don't think the average individual understands how wide reaching the constitution really is and some of the things that the constitution relates to and some of the rights that people have under the constitution. So it really is broad, but we need to take a couple messages and when we get back we'll be taking a couple calls. For those of you who may have joined us mid interview, we are speaking to Doctor Terence Farrell. We are discussing this morning constitutional reform. The National Advisory Committee on constitutional reform having the first meeting this evening. Some of your calls when we get back. Stay with us. [00:22:10] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. [00:22:18] Speaker B: With US Doctor Terence Farrell. We're discussing here this morning the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform. We've got a meeting this evening. We'll tell you more about that in just a bit. Let's take some of your calls. I'd like you to keep your calls brief so, so that we can get as many in as possible. Hello, good morning. [00:22:35] Speaker D: Good morning, satish and good morning to Doctor Terence Farrell, your esteemed guest. Doctor Farrell, I want to first of all thank yourself and fellow commissioners for giving up your time to this matter that is of great import nationally. The question of constitutional reform have been engaging my mind for a very long time. I think you have started off on the right footing. I have a serious problem with the integrity commission, which I think needs to be properly restructured and given the teeth it needed. But one of the things that I do not want to be lost in this whole discussion is the question of the structure of government. The absence of the member of parliament on the ground has created a vacuum for persons who are illegitimate leaders to take charge of communities and eventually they may take charge of the country too. So we have to understand that the structure of government is vital in anything that we come up with. At the end of the day, it's going to be a very important exercise that you have embarked on. One favor I want to ask our commissioners, however, is that when you come outside to listen to the public, please ensure that there is the type of structure in place where persons can give their views in comfort. I would like to see a numbering system rather than people line up to the microphone. And again, Doctor Farrell, this is a very important exercise. I will be part of it because I think that there's nothing of greater import right now for the country. I thank you for this. [00:24:17] Speaker B: Okay, no question there. Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning. [00:24:20] Speaker E: Good morning again, Satish and good morning to your honored guest, Doctor Terence Farrell. Princess tongue. Mister Farrell, I want to say publicly that I am cautiously optimistic this time around with the work of this commission and the assignment. The members who make up the commission I think is a competent team. And I really want to implore upon you that I'm sure you are aware that of the work of this commission really has the potential to really bring about the kind of changes that citizens have been crying out for so many years, that we have been asking for constitutional reform and so on. So I want to commend you and for your work that you have done already and you plan to do. And just to remind you that this is going to bring about the kind of change that is going to positively impact this population for generations to come. So I wish you all the best. One thing I want to ask after you, if you hold the convention or the assembly, you talk about where you're going to have that final discussion with all stakeholders. But when the final document is prepared, before it goes to cabinet or whatever is it, will it be able to be circulated among the public? So we will see beforehand what is going to parliament, so we'll be able to advocate and to lobby our MP's. Because a lot of times things are debated in parliament and citizens are not aware and these MP's take their own political parties or position while they, when they should be debating the national interest. [00:25:58] Speaker B: Okay, thank you so much for your call Doctor Farrell. The public, the public's ability to comment on any document that's put forward, what's the possibility of that? [00:26:09] Speaker C: Well, I think that the committee would certainly welcome that approach. In other words, when we hand in our report with the recommendations that we would have distilled from the consultations and from the previous reports and so on, one of the approaches which I certainly think would make a lot of sense, would be that the government simply lays that report in parliament so it becomes a public document immediately. If you are going to go to the root of a constituent assembly or constitutional convention, then it also makes sense for the parliament to simply pass a resolution saying we are going to have a constituent assembly and use the report emanating from the committee's work as. Which is what terms of reference say as the basis for that constitutional convention. So I think in that way, the document would become public. People would have a chance to see what recommendations have emerged. And then at the convention or the constituent assembly, whatever you want to call it, there would be a further opportunity for political parties, for civil society organizations and so on, to look at the recommendations in detail and to make up their minds as to what it is they want to see. Eventually. [00:27:33] Speaker B: You said to us that you've received over 120. I think it was 125 suggestions thus far. [00:27:39] Speaker C: Yes. [00:27:39] Speaker B: Are you at liberty to share with us what some of those suggestions are? [00:27:45] Speaker C: They range, quite frankly, they range over a large number of issues. Obviously, there are a lot of recommendations related to electoral reform, to questions around proportional representation. A lot of them relate to the presidency, actually, very interestingly, a lot of recommendations around the powers of the president and so on. Some of them relate to, a couple of them relate to the question of the CCG and the privy Council. There are quite a few of them that relate to the question of rights. So in that regard, many people are sort of advocating for some kind of inclusion of what are called economic, social, political and cultural rights. I think, as you know, the United Nations Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is something that countries signed on to in the 1970s. The Convention on the, on woman was done in 19, 1980s. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was 1989. So all of those things have happened after our 1976 constitution. So many people are pointing that out and trying to make a case that somehow the constitution should reflect some of those rights. So, yeah, so those are samples. Some really very, very interesting submission some people have submitted around the public service. I suppose I could disclose that a couple of the submissions have come in from retired permanent secretaries with their comments on, around public service and so on. So really quite, very interesting, very rich submissions that we have achieved, that we have obtained so far. [00:29:35] Speaker B: Yeah, it would be interesting to, to hear the suggestions from the retired permanent secretaries because they would have lived the service and they would have, many of them, while they may not have had the opportunity to influence or change things, would have identified in their own minds what needs to be addressed to get great efficiency and accountability and all those things. So that's definitely going to be very interesting. Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. [00:30:05] Speaker F: I want to ask the gentleman about the people who on this committee to review the constitution and to do the meetings around the country. Is it well advertised? And also, do these people have the best Trinidad and Tobago best interest at heart? And how can the public trust that they would not take up a partisan kind of view. And also besides the public engagement. Because the public in this country. They do not know what is required for fully functioning and fair and just country. Are you going to engage the attention of any constitutional lawyers? For instance? I think freedom of speech is a main element in a free and fair society. And that should be included. [00:31:05] Speaker B: Okay, I'm sorry, but in order to give Doctor Farrell time to respond. I'm gonna have to end your interview there. Excuse me, Doctor Farrell, your response? [00:31:15] Speaker C: Well, I had a slight difficulty understanding the question. But I think he was asking, I think two questions there. One was. Can he trust the committee to be fair and to be impartial? And quite frankly, I would say yes. Because this committee, if you look at it. A set of people who. They're very experienced people. So we have Barry Sinilan is our chairman. And Barry Sinnan is a former speaker of the House. We have Nizam Mohammed, who's also a former speaker of the House. We have Jackie Sampson, Miguel. Who is a former clerk of the House. And in that position for over two decades. And so on myself and so on. So the committee is a very independent committee. It is by no means partisan. But it's also a very experienced committee. In the sense that you have people who have been in and around government. Around parliament, around the executive. I myself have not served in any political capacity. I have always maintained a very independent voice in our society. And the second question has to do with taking on board the views of what I think called constitutional lawyers and so on. The answer is yes. So apart from the public consultations. We are talking with a number of experts. We've already had some of those meetings already. So these are lawyers, these are judges. We are talking to academics who are versed in constitutional law, political science. We also plan to talk to a number of people who are specialists in society. We think it's important to understand the increase. Or what appears to be an increase in sort of the anger and violence. That we've seen in the society over the course of the last 50 years. And to interrogate as to what explains that. And to try to understand how does that resonate with the values that we say that we have as a society. That we want a society that is peaceful, that is disciplined, that is orderly, that is friendly and so on. But yet at the same time we have all of these things taking place. Which manifest a certain kind of anger and so on. We need to understand that. Tobago, for example, is also a very special issue. That we have to take into consideration to how we deal with that. So we are and will be talking to specialists or experts, if you want to call them that, both on the legal side, yes, constitutional law, but also in respect of society, in terms of politics, in terms of social psychology, if you like, so as to better get a better understanding of the society. Excuse me. The constitution is not only, it is the supreme law, and it is written in a very legalistic kind of way. It is interpreted in a very generous kind of way, but the constitution also reflects the spirit of the society. It reflects our values, it reflects what we stand for as a people. And therefore, it's important to capture that. And I think one of the things which one of your, one of your questioners asked or pointed out was that you are making a constitution, not for us so much, but for our children and for our grandchildren, so that it's important for us to look to the future and ask ourselves the question, what kind of society do we want our children and our grandchildren to inherit? [00:34:48] Speaker B: Yeah, a very important question. And I'm sure that in conducting your work, there will be many statements made that later on we'll need to hear from. I'd love. Usually we have these discussions prior to the event, and the event is later this evening. I'll allow you to tell people about that in just a bit. Unfortunately, many times we don't get a follow up interview to find out, well, what really transpired, what were some of the things that people had to say. And with the work being conducted by the committee within a very short space of time, I'm positive we'll need to speak to you again to get an update of what's going on. But as we end our interview here this morning, tell us about this meeting being held this evening, where it is, the time and how people can, can be a part of it. [00:35:28] Speaker C: Well, it's at the San Rigandi Civic center. It's on Foster Road in San Rigrandi for those of you who live in that area. So we're inviting people from the San Francisco San Rigandi environs. It begins at 06:00 p.m. This evening. And we're inviting all those people. Even if you've made some missions before and you want to come and you're from that area and you want to come and articulate your viewers, you're most welcome. But we are particularly interested in having young people and also older people who may not be inclined to use email and so on. We want to invite all of those people to come to Sangrigandi Civic center this afternoon on Foster Road and share your views with the committee. We are there to listen and to try to sort of distill what it is you have to say, what are your concerns are and how that can be reflected in terms of the reform proposals that we made going forward. [00:36:22] Speaker B: Yeah. Doctor Farah, I want to thank you for being with us here this morning and sharing this information, valuable information. And I'm hoping that we speak again, not too distant future, on how things transpire. Thank you once again for being with. [00:36:33] Speaker C: Us here this morning. Most happy to do so. [00:36:35] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.