Senator Hulse says denying access to Court is wrong

Godwin Hulse

As we said, Public Consultation on the Ninth Amendment Bill will begin in the next two weeks; the Eighth Amendment Bill, however, has now been formally withdrawn.  And though several attorneys from different sides of the political divide have expressed their concern regarding the Ninth Amendment Bill, News Five posed the question to Godwin Hulse, the Senator representing the business community.  Hulse acknowledges that the government has the authority to make changes, but when it comes to denying access to the court, it’s plainly wrong.

Godwin Hulse, Senator

“The constitution is the people’s law. It is that document which the people collectively decide this is the way to run our society. It embodies what our fundamental rights are; it embodies the relationship of the people with the state and those whom they elect; it embodies the mechanism for electing those people. So this is really the people’s law. And it says any other law that you make must be in conformity with it. I think this is the best way you can describe it. As Thomas Payne had said, this is the society’s idea of how we will be governed. It doesn’t mean that we all got together and wrote it, but that is the principle and that is the concept.”

Jose Sanchez

“Should we change the constitution? It is something that the architects said we are supposed to live with—we are supposed to be governed within these rules.”

Godwin Hulse

“Well we can change it to enhance our society—there is nothing wrong with that. Whenever we see that there is a flaw in the way we are governed; or a flaw in the way our society is, we are free to do this and that is why the constitution itself builds the mechanisms of how you go by doing that. First you put your bill before the parliament, there have to be in some cases two-thirds, in other cases three-quarter; you have to consult for at least ninety days and you should by all intents and purposes follow the recommendations coming out of those consultations because remember this is the people’s law.”

Jose Sanchez

“I think you will find many people in agreement with government holding shares in utility companies, but this new amendment would then allow any government—not only the current government—to have power above the constitution. Wouldn’t it?

Godwin Hulse

“Well there are two things with the amendments and let’s not separate them. We don’t want to hide the difficult part of the amendment under the nationalistic fever or having now entrenched the ownership of utilities in the constitution. That’s another matter—nobody is going to argue with that—government wants to do that, people feel passionate about that, great. We’ve had it before, we sold it, we have it again, we sold it now we putting it. And it’s not permanent, please. If you want it to be permanent then you have to put some other mechanisms because remember another government with a two-third majority could repeal this very amendment. So that is an issue to be further debated. But to my mind, the most significant thing is that you are now putting any changes that you make to the constitution beyond the reach of the courts—ensuring that amendments made by the national assembly are beyond the reach of the courts and that’s a dangerous thing. You can’t say to the people that we make an amendment; twenty-two of us—and that is cast in stone; it cannot be even discussed in the courts. That is not correct. The reason being; yes they have the power to make it, nobody can argue about the power—that’s already in the constitution. But if the amendment you made is right, is another matter. For example; you have the power to amend it. Let us say you amend the constitution to say there will be no more freedom of speech in this country—the way we know it—oh you have the power  to do that, but would that be the right in do? That is why you would go to court; to put it in layman’s terms.”