BY NED GAGAHE
The Leader of the Opposition, Matthew Wale, has strongly criticized the government’s decision to include a deadline in the Constitution (Amendment) (Constituent Assembly Sitting) Bill 2024, arguing that it could lead to ongoing amendments and unnecessary delays in the constitutional reform process.
During the second reading of the bill in Parliament yesterday, Wale raised concerns about the potential long-term consequences of setting a fixed deadline within the constitution.
The Constitution (Amendment) Constituent Assembly Sitting Bill 2014 went through its second reading yesterday in Parliament.
The bill aims to amend the Constitution Amendment Act of 2023 by increasing the number of assembly members from 80 to 100, thereby expanding representation across various demographics.
The bill seeks to amend the provision on the date for the convening of the Constituent Assembly from 31st December 2024 to 31st December 2026.
When introducing the bill in Parliament Monday last week, Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele explains that the bill seeks to amend the provision on the date for the convening of the Constituent Assembly from 31st December 2024 to 31st December 2026.
He highlighted that the Constitution Amendment, Constituent Assembly Act 2023 remains a continuous standing commitment of the Government of National Unity and Transformation (GNUT).
However, the Opposition Leader pointed out that no other country’s constitution has such a provision, making the Solomon Islands’ constitutional reform process unique and potentially problematic.
“It is sensible not to place deadlines in constitutions,” Wale stated.
He warned that by including a deadline, the government is setting up a situation where further constitutional amendments will be required to postpone the deadline.
This, according to Wale, could create a cycle of delays, each necessitating yet another amendment to extend the deadline, leading to a prolonged and inefficient process.
The committee had already recommended removing the deadline, but Wale expressed frustration that the government had ignored this advice.
He emphasized that a fixed deadline could force constitutional changes based on arbitrary timelines rather than on the necessary preparedness and consensus of the people.
“This could result in a situation where the government is forced to amend the constitution repeatedly, simply to buy more time,” he explained.
Wale warned that financial and administrative challenges might push the government to seek further postponements, making the situation even more complicated.
By urging for the complete removal of the deadline, Wale stressed that it would allow for a more flexible approach to constitutional reform, one that aligns with the evolving needs of the country.
