Completing the Constitution Review process

...MPs must be at the centre

December 22 and 23, 2012 were two days of rude awakening for a handful of journalists who were supposed to be in the company of about 40 Members of Parliament (MPs) for a workshop organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).

The workshop was meant to provide a platform for MPs serving on the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Committee on Subsidiary Legislation to deliberate on the final report of the Constitution Review Commission (CRC) and the Government White Paper on the review process.

With the dates so close to the Yuletide, it would have been unrealistic for anyone to expect all 40 MPs to turn up. Even so, no one expected only eight (one-fifth) of the members to appear. The huge number of absentees aside, it was heartbreaking to hear some MPs enquire about the address for the website from which they could download copies of the CRC’s report.

Goodness! The question was being posed 12 clear months after the CRC presented its report to the then President John Evans Atta Mills (late) and six months since government issued its White Paper. The questions this raises are many but two are very relevant for the present discourse: what kind of support does government intend to give MPs to improve their access to crucial documents and research material? And, what steps would MPs themselves take to improve their knowledge on pertinent issues through research?

These questions are posed because the review process has not been, and must not be, abandoned. By the indications given by the just-gone-by National Democratic Congress administration (you may call it the Mills/Mahama/Amissah-Arthur administration), the Constitution Review process would be continued and possibly completed this year and a certain five-member Implementation Committee will play a pivotal role.

It is worth mentioning that when the immediate past administration issued a “White Paper on the Report of the Constitution Review Commission of Inquiry” last June, it indicated that “For the purposes of the implementation of the recommendations that have been accepted, the Government is to set up a five-member Implementation Committee with the mandate to implement, in strict compliance with Chapter 25 of the Constitution on Amendments to the Constitution, the recommendations accepted by Government.”

It added that: “The Implementation Committee is to start work immediately, but because this [2012] is an election year, it is most likely that actual processes leading to the amendments may have to be deferred till after the elections.”

With such demonstration of commitment, it is not out of place to assume that government will seek to complete the review process. Thus, before government turns its attention to this all important business it needs to prioritise the involvement of the MPs.

Hearing how the Majority Leader of the last Parliament, Hon Cletus Avoka, rationalised the absence of the 32 MPs from the IEA workshop, one got the impression that MPs had too much government business on their plates towards the latter part of the year. This coupled with elections had sapped the energies of many of them.

For clarity purposes, Hon Avoka reasoned that MPs have found themselves busy since the death of President Mills on July 24 2012. They did not only have to oversee the immediate swearing-in of his successor but also had to vet a vice presidential nominee, and be involved in the funeral of the late president. Aside of this, they had to contend with the challenges of the infamous CI 78 – the instrument on creation of new constituencies. Having done all these, MPs had to go into elections.

So, “I am not sure that MPs have had the opportunity of even opening documents from the CRC and then also the White Paper from the government. That explains our limitations,” he said.

All the reasons offered by Hon Avoka are pleasing as far as the human ear is concerned. But how does he answer the question regarding why certain MPs had not bothered to look for the CRC report since December 2011. The time space between that and the death of the former president is seven months.

The point is that we are clearly back at the issue of providing MPs with research assistants. After all, we do not expect our MPs to become God – omniscient. For crying out loud, they are not walking encyclopedia.  Indeed, looking at the volume of documents these men and women have to read, it will be very wicked on our part as a country to expect them to read everything by themselves. What they need are knowledgeable assistants who can provide on the spur of the moment debriefing to enable MPs work assiduously, taking well-informed positions on pertinent issues.

Let the executive also be mindful of the rush-hour businesses it sends to the house during the final few hours of a session. It has not helped and will not help the nation. It does not facilitate effective research and analysis by MPs.

That notwithstanding, MPs must also on their own recruit people to help them research issues. It is counterproductive to sit and expect the executive to always fund activities of legislators. At least, sacrificing a bit of their GHC7,200 monthly salary on a research assistant should not be too much to ask for and should not hurt their pockets.

To conclude, there is hope that the IEA will keep the promise it made in December to bring the MPs – both old and new – together again to deliberate on the two important reports. While it does that, MPs must treat the Constitution Review process with the same seriousness they attach to other processes. 
 Originally published in the Public Agenda on Friday January 25, 2012.