Attorneys in court over proposed change to constitution

We turn now to the Supreme Court where the case of Barry Bowen versus the Attorney General got underway this morning. Bowen is challenging section seventeen of the constitutional amendment put forward earlier this year by the government and passed in the House in August. In its original form, it provides protection from deprivation of property or acquisition rights and rights to access the courts. In the amendment, G.O.B. vested ownership of the petroleum and minerals rights in the hands of the government, but clause two also denied access to the courts to persons wishing to challenge it, which is what Bowen took issue with. Today Courtenay began arguing six grounds for appeal and in his submissions took the Chief Justice back to 1979 and 1981 when the country was in the process of gaining independence. Midway through his arguments, Young rose to say that while history is all well and good, it does not address the point as what is before the court is an interpretation of the constitution. But according to Courtenay, the court needs to know the true meaning of the constitution in order to make a ruling.

Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for Barry Bowen
“What is being challenged is not that a law is inconsistent with the constitution, we are saying that an amendment is in contradiction with the constitution itself. So that’s the very first time that somebody is saying you cannot change the constitution in a particular way because it contradicts with other sections. The cases that we are going to rely on come from Tanzania, come from Mauritius, come from Uganda; come from all over the world, Kenya. To show that those other democracies take the same approach the way we do that when you are looking at whether the constitution is conflict with itself, you have to go back to what the founding fathers of your country did and how they designed the constitution, so we had to paint that picture for him. We are convinced that the bill goes too far, we are convinced that the legislature doesn’t have the authority to bar access to the courts, to take away property without compensation, and so we hope that the Chief Justice will see things our way and rule in favour of our client.”