Audrey Matura: Constitutional Reform Needed, but G.O.B. Going about it Wrong

Audrey Matura

And while Union Senator Elena Smith is optimistic that the process is progressive and will yield results in the end, attorney Audrey Matura is sceptical. She believes that G.O.B. is going about constitutional reform in a wrong way.  Matura says that experts in constitutional law and its development should have instead been pooled and amendments, where necessary, should then be taken to the people via consultation. According to Matura, the commission is loaded with persons with individual interests or for the particular community they represent and not from a nationalistic perspective. 

Audrey Matura, Founder, Moving Ahead Together

“I don’t think it is a progressive move. I think it’s needed, but I think the way they going about it is wrong. For example, how can you put on a commission so many people with so many interests, personal interests – everybody wants to put their agenda there. That’s not the purpose of constitutional reform. The purpose of constitutional reform is that you have to get people who know the constitution and they lobby ideas. They find out what people want. What is it that you want to change in the constitution? What is it that is working? What is it that can be removed? What is it that can be improved? What is it that can be added? That’s not happening; it’s everybody talking over each other. I don’t believe with how it is being done. The other thing I have a problem with. You are going to the people and say hey I want to change the constitution; what you want change? But you are asking people who don’t even know the constitution. There’s some good in it, but there are some things that can improve that comes updated with the time. I am concerned that people with their own little agendas will take over the movement. So I do not believe the process is the proper process, but I do believe that there is need for constitutional reform. It is so ironic because under the previous government, Dean Barrow just wanted to change key things and force it down our throats and there I was fighting against the seventh the eight the ninth the tenth the eleventh, all kinds of amendments where he was taking away rights. Now this group comes with the other extreme. Okay you all tell me what you want. That’s not the way you do it; there has to be a middle ground. You get qualified constitutional attorneys. You get people who are trained in this, who know it and they will look at it. They will do comparatives of constitutions over the world, they will look at your society, they will look at what has changed, what are the rights that you want to change. Definitely one of the things that the constitution now has to address is the Section 53 of the criminal code that has become law. But how do you incorporate that into the constitution without offending others? There are ways to do it. But I don’t see it productive. It’s more a political gimmick – some people will be making money and blah blah blah.”