Bill 7 Process Lacks Credibility and Professionalism, Says Laura Miti

Laura Miti has described the Bill 7 amendment process as a rushed and unstructured undertaking that does not reflect professionalism or proper constitutional reform procedure. She said the approach being taken lacks credible frameworks and clear design. She said that the United Party for National Development administration pushing the amendment agenda has exposed itself by rushing the process without a structured national mechanism. She said the manner in which the work is being executed shows no attempt to establish procedural discipline.

Miti said that the Bill 7 process is being driven in a manner that fails to show consistency between different parts of the country. She said there is no evidence of uniform standards in how submissions are being received. She said that what has transpired shows that amendments are being pushed to reach a predetermined conclusion rather than to reflect structured consultation. She said that the lack of consistency across districts proves that the process is not grounded in a national reform framework.

Miti said that it is clear that those in government are working under pressure to finalise Bill 7 in the shortest possible time, rather than to build credibility in the process. She said this absence of professional procedure is contributing to public doubt. She said that it is a sign of anxiety. She said there is no evidence of a structured operational plan for the process. She said that if there had been any clear guiding framework, then the work done in one region would mirror the work done in another.

She said that if no one inside government was able to design a proper procedural roadmap, then the state should have sought assistance from qualified experts. She said the country could have avoided the current outcome if professional skills were engaged to guide the process. She said it is evident that the administrative structure around Bill 7 is insufficient. She said the current arrangement is not convincing.

Miti said that there are also concerns regarding how submissions are being handled. She said that there is a pattern where submissions are encouraged or discouraged depending on their usefulness to the amendment agenda. She said that this manner of screening destroys credibility. She said this is another indicator that the process is not a neutral platform.

She said the cumulative effect of these shortcomings is that the Bill 7 amendment exercise lacks legitimacy. She said that it is not the purpose of a constitutional amendment to simply approve predetermined outcomes. She said that credible reform exercises must uphold consistency and transparency.

Miti said that the Bill 7 process would have been stronger if it had been grounded in coherent rule-based planning. She said the present approach creates the impression that the Bill 7 mandate is not grounded in national consensus. She said the process does not reflect a deliberate constitutional review structure that inspires confidence. She said that this is a major procedural weakness.