Barrow is Bogus

By: glenntillett@yahoo.com

As someone who attended four of the public consultations held by the House Constitution and Foreign Affairs Committee on the Seventh (Belize) Constitution Amendment Bill, I can say categorically that almost as many people objected to the provision to allow for the Attorney General to come from outside of the National Assembly as those who objected to the proposal to repeal the dual nationality disqualification for members of the National Assembly.

I make the point because I heard Prime Minister Dean Barrow say in the House of Representatives last Friday that the reason they were deleting the dual nationality provision from the Bill was because of its manifest unpopularity. If that is the case then clearly the Attorney General provision should also have been deleted.

But this is the bogusness of Dean Oliver Barrow. This is how he continues to divide the nation. Although it is clear that the vast majority of the persons who cared to offer an opinion on the matter at the constitutionally mandated consultations clearly opposed the proposal, he will do it anyway.

For me it was clear from the very first consultation held at the Bishop Sylvestre Memorial Hall in Belize City that this was very obviously the case.

The very first person to speak was Arthur Saldivar and he asked a question that is still being asked today, because as of yet there has not been a satisfactory answer. In fact in this week’s Senate debate, the Senator representing the business community, Hon. Godwin Hulse asked the very same question: Why is this necessary?

He postulated aloud that that he could see no “pressing or urgent need” for this amendment, and speculated that it could not be because of cost since ministerial salaries are fixed.

He concluded by saying that it should have been part of a more comprehensive package if it is an attempt at political reform.

Indeed his echoed the comments I heard at the consultation meetings.

That night in October 2009 at the Bishop Sylvestre Memorial Hall, Lisa Shoman, Yvonne Harshorn, Jihad Nedal, Carolyn Trench-Sandiford, Carmen Silva, Lincoln Gillett, Thomas Greenwood, Rufus X, Street Vibes, Danalyn Myvett, Harlan Barrow, Sylvanna Udz, Moses Sulph and Sharon Marin all in some form or fashion asked the same question. All objected to the proposed amendment, criticizing it as creeping Republicanism, and as weakening our tradition of parliamentary democracy.

Sure some of the persons who spoke out that night speculated that this was being done to accommodate the Prime Minister’s ex wife Lois Young-Barrow becoming the Attorney General and I believe that in the absence of a credible explanation, that speculation has to be considered fair comment.

If it should become reality, well, then how now brown cow?

Hon. John Saldivar, a member of the House Committee panel tried to argue that because the Government was having, in his words, “so much trouble finding a Solicitor General,” they needed the amendment because “… imagine the trouble finding an Attorney General.”

That was almost immediately countered by one of the speakers who pointed out that perhaps the Solicitor General’s long search had more to do with how the last Solicitor General had been forced to demit office, than with anything else. And if the Attorney General was to be subjected to the same kind of “discipline” … well you can imagine the possibilities.

The only member of the audience to speak in support of the amendment that night was Senator Henry Gordon, who explained that he preferred a Republican system of government, and he was consistent in supporting it in the Senate, for the same reason.

He also opined that the despite the fact that the Attorney General would come from outside the National Assembly, in his view that individual would still be answerable to the National Assembly.

He was critical of the process, though, and agreed with Senator Lisa Shoman that the government should resort back to using the procedure of writing and circulating a “White Paper” for discussion on all proposed constitutional change. And this goes to the heart of my opposition to Dean Barrow’s policy of deliberate division and discord.

Either you regard our constitution as sacred or you don’t. Barrow, I would opine, does not. I also believe that if you do not regard the constitution as sacred, you are at best a hypocrite for solemnly swearing to uphold the constitution.

You should not be so cavalier when it comes to any proposed changes to our constitution to declare a committee headed by two of your most confrontational ministers having poorly advertized meetings with small groups as adequate consultations. It is also offending to incorrectly declare that based on those inadequate consultations that the changes have been green lighted by the people and nation of Belize.

Last Friday Dean Barrow again divided the people of Belize between the FOB’s, SOB’s and ROB’s, and the rest of us.

Barrow is bogus.

| | | | | |