Cowan & Tripartite Reports Deviate From Amendment Bill …Basita Michael Affirms
By Kelvin Jay
Popular Democracy advocate Basita Michael has raised serious concerns over what she describes as multiple contradictions within the Proposed Constitutional Amendments Bill, warning that the inconsistencies could undermine the credibility and intent of the reform process.
Speaking on the matter, Michael pointed specifically to Clauses 9 axxnd 11, which she said directly contradict each other, creating legal ambiguity and confusion within the proposed amendments. According to her, such internal inconsistencies reflect poor drafting and raise questions about the coherence of the bill as a whole.
Michael also dismissed claims by the Attorney General that the bulk of the proposed constitutional changes are derived from the Justice Cowan Report and the Tripartite Committee recommendations. She argued that a careful review of the bill shows that many of its provisions are neither aligned with nor reflective of the recommendations contained in those key reform documents.
“The claim that these amendments are largely products of the Justice Cowan Report and the Tripartite process is misleading,” Michael stated. “When you examine the content critically, it becomes clear that several provisions deviate significantly from what was agreed upon, thereby creating unnecessary confusion and mistrust.”
She warned that presenting the amendments as outcomes of consensus-driven reports, while introducing provisions that diverge from them, risks eroding public confidence in the constitutional reform agenda.
Michael called on the government to clarify the source and rationale of each proposed amendment and urged lawmakers to address the contradictions before the bill proceeds further through Parliament. She emphasized that constitutional reform must be transparent, consistent, and faithful to established recommendations if it is to command broad national support.
