Professor Shaista Shameem, a well-regarded constitutional and human rights lawyer, emphasizes the importance of considering the provisions regarding constitutional reviews when evaluating the 2013 Constitution. She asserts that the process of engaging the public through a referendum should not be minimized, as it reflects the people’s opinions on governance, which are vital.
In her view, while the 2013 Constitution contains beneficial elements, a decade later, it’s essential to assess which aspects might need reevaluation. She urges that those advocating for constitutional changes should not fear a referendum, suggesting that if leaders approach the people with respect and understanding, gaining the necessary majority for changes becomes a realistic goal.
Professor Shameem also highlights that while amending the constitution requires a significant majority, it is certainly achievable with effective persuasion. She notes a troubling tendency among some to bypass constitutional provisions, which she argues would be unlawful.
Reflecting on the limitations of the Bill of Rights within the constitution, she draws parallels to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also contains limitations. She encourages those proposing amendments to carefully consider the implications of seeking unlimited rights, referencing the detailed limitations established in the 1997 Constitution, which had the support of civil society.
Her statements serve as a reminder that thoughtful deliberation and public engagement are crucial in any constitutional review process. This also presents an opportunity to strengthen democracy by respecting and incorporating the voices of ordinary citizens.
In essence, the article advocates for a considered and inclusive approach to constitutional amendments, encouraging leaders to engage constructively with the electorate.
Leave a comment