By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Staff Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEY Wayne Munroe yesterday slammed recommendations made by the Constitutional Commission on the grounds that its process was inherently flawed.

Mr Munroe said lawyers would have a “field day” if recommendations were acted upon, and ultimately blamed for the legal debacle that would follow.

He also expressed doubt that the government would be able to act on all recommendations within its five-year term, and pointed out that the prospect of hosting numerous referendums was impractical given the current fiscal climate.

“The process was flawed,” he said, “that’s not how you amend your supreme law.”

Mr Munroe said: “We’re not the only country that does this, and the commission didn’t proceed as law commissions proceed when they embark on changing supreme law.

“I just laughed when I saw people giving opinions of what the law should be without any conception of what the present law is. How is it that you change something when most of the people that change it have no idea of what it was.”

He added: “We’re supposed to be in financially austere times if the government has four referendums at $2 million each, which are preceded by a public education programme, is that really something that can be accomplished before the next general election?”

Mr Munroe said he was disturbed by the commission’s recommendation on gaming, which he felt would only benefit foreign casinos, after the government has purposely decided not to support local businesses engaged in similar practices.

The Constitutional Commission delivered its report, which outlined several areas for constitutional reform, on Monday.

Among recommendations were:  an amendment to citizenship provisions to achieve gender-neutrality and full equality between men and women with respect to the acquisition or transmission of nationality; and expanding the definition of discrimination in Article 26 to include “sex” as a prohibited ground.

On the matter of gaming, Constitutional Committee Chairman Sean McWeeney said no constitutional changes were required to remove the “repugnant” discrimination that prevents Bahamians from gambling in all of its forms.

Mr McWeeney said, the whole issue could be easily fixed by a simple amendment by the government.

In an interview with The Tribune, Mr Munroe, who represents Island Game, Island Luck, FML, Asue Draw, Whattfall and Chances, challenged empirical conclusions drawn by the commission and pointed to the low turnout to town meetings in comparison to the size of the electorate. He said that he opted not to participate in the process because he did not wish to legitimize efforts.

“The process of amending your supreme law is first from a legal perspective determining what it says,” Mr Munroe said.

“When it’s messed up and lawyers make a killing of it, people will throw the blame.”

“You should concern yourself first with what disadvantages you will create for children born abroad instead of just trying to satisfy calls for equality. If these things are acted upon it’s going to create a field day, and while I’m quite happy to make the money when people do foolishness, I’d rather not.”

Web shop owners are seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that their operations are not regulated by the Lotteries and Gaming Act.

Mr Munroe said if this is denied, then legal council will move that the act is unconstitutional and thirdly that the owners had an agreement with the former FNM administration in exchange for confidential information on their businesses.

The matter has not yet gone to trial, according to Mr Munroe, who said counsel is waiting for the Office of the Attorney General to file a defence to his client’s statement of claim.

Mr Munroe added: “In what other commonwealth country has this happened? All of our constitutions are largely the same, Barbados, Trinidad, Jamaica, St Kitts, where has this ever happened before?

“Our constitution is almost exactly like those countries, where has this scale of reform ever been attempted or thought reasonable before, and if considered have they gone about it in this fashion. If not, why not, are we just that smart?

“It was a good show for the 40th Independence celebrations, that makes a good talking point I guess but where is the practicality?”