Taitt: Debate feels rushed, unsure  

Just before she abstained from voting in the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025, Independent Senator Monique Taitt had a number of burning questions surrounding the bill.

Speaking recently at the sitting of the Senate before the Bill was passed, Taitt made her concerns known before the vote was taken.

First of all, she expressed concern about Government addressing the Constitution in “pieces”.

“The Constitution is our law. It is who we are supposed to be. It is supposed to be the position, our law. And what I am concerned about is why we keep going at it, piece, piece, piece, piece, like it’s a bill as opposed to the Constitution,” she stated.

“We should be approaching the Constitution carefully. We should be approaching it slowly. I know that’s
a term that Senator (Dr Shantal) Monroe-Knight does not like us to use. She always says we don’t go slow. But we should be clear when we are going towards the Constitution. So my first query is, we had a Constitutional Reform Commission that dealt with constitutional amendment, but we haven’t seen it here yet. And so are these proposed amendments a part of that commission’s remit? Where’s the report?”
she asked.

Taitt added: “I was expecting if we’re going to be tackling a Constitution that has been around for some time, that we’re gonna do it holistically. We’re gonna do it after public discourse, public debate. Piecemeal sounds or feels like a rushed thing, an unsure thing.”

In terms of the two amendments presented she stated: “I’m looking for the earth-shattering urgency of either one. Now, one can argue, depending on how you look at it, that the one that’s dealing with the speaker may be earth-shattering or urgent, depending on when the bell is rung. But by itself, it’s not urgent. Not to the point where we’re doing a Constitutional amendment on the 15th of December, 2025, before Christmas, without more, without discussion, without bringing in the public, without the commission’s input.”

She added that the Constitutional Reform Commission had not been presented to the Senate.

“So my question is, why? Why are we messing, my word, with the Constitution with two not very important to my mind amendments for something as important as our Constitution? Now, whether it’s a republic Constitution, as referred to by Senator (Andre) Worrell, or if it’s a Constitution, it is the ultimate law of Barbados. It is not something to be trifled with. So that is my first question. Why these two? What about more important things that we could be dealing with the Constitution?”

 Secondly, Taitt questioned information relating to the amendment.

“If we’re coming with an amendment, where is the detail? We have no information. The information that comes with this proposed amendment, let’s deal with the speaker, has no procedural detail. We’re making amendments that if we’re not careful, we’re gonna have to amend our amendments.” 

She added: “And we know this government is good at that. But the problem is, when you do it with a bill, that’s one thing. But to have to be messing with the Constitution to fix something, that is a different thing altogether.You’re not supposed to come to the Constitution unless and until
you’re sure.”

In terms of the amendment relating to the appointment of a Speaker Taitt also had concerns.

“If I’m looking at clause 45A2, and I quote, sir, ‘when the House of Assembly first meets after any dissolution of Parliament and before it proceeds to the dispatch of any business, it shall elect a person who is not a member of the House of Assembly or the Senate to be speaker. And whenever the office of speaker becomes vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the House shall, as soon as practicable, elect another such person to that office.’

“Okay, we have that. But Mr President, the person shall not be a member of the House of Assembly or the Senate. But is this person . . . . I believe it was the leader of the Government business spoke of an independent speaker. So what does that really mean? Because it’s not defined here from what I can see from my quick glance. I just became aware of the legislation this morning, having only been sworn in on Friday.”

She queried: “How soon before a person is not a member of the House of Assembly or the Senate can a person be qualified to be the Speaker?”

Taitt, an attorney, referenced the office of the President which she said could not be a“must neither be of either house, but it has to be for a period of 12 months, if I’m correct, subject to correction. There’s no such qualification for the Speaker. So having set a precedent and a qualification for the President, I would figure that the Speaker’s position is just as important.”

The post Taitt: Debate feels rushed, unsure   appeared first on nationnews.com.