The People’s National Party has objected to what it says is an “abuse of democratic governance” by the Government to bring a Bill to Parliament to amend the Constitution to facilitate a further extension of the tenure of the incumbent Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Paula Llewellyn.

In a statement on Monday, the PNP said it was brought to their attention that the Andrew Holness-led Government intends to bring a Bill to Parliament today.

The Opposition said this move raises serious concerns about democratic governance and the principles of constitutional reform.

In 2020, Prime Minister Andrew Holness recommended a three-year extension of tenure for DPP Paula Llewellyn despite strong criticisms by then Opposition Leader Dr Peter Phillips, who wrote to the governor general objecting to the extension.

Holness characterised as unfortunate the airing of the matter in the public domain, stating that public pronouncements complicate these matters. According to a report, Dr Phillips, in his submission to Governor General Sir Patrick Allen in March, cited a poor track record on corruption prosecutions, and “many deficiencies” in the conduct of the office of the DPP over the past 12 years.

READ: PM recommends 3-year extension for DPP despite objection

According to the PNP, Opposition Leader Mark Golding was not consulted on the extension, despite the fact that it is a requirement of the Constitution.

Against this background, the Opposition has called for the Government “to reconsider its approach and uphold the principles of transparency, democratic governance, and respect for established constitutional procedures.”

“We urge the government to engage in meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including the Opposition, and to refrain from exploiting its parliamentary majority for decisions that can have far-reaching consequences for the integrity of our democratic institutions,” the PNP added.

In addition, the Party has placed the following objections on record:

1. We strongly object to the decision to amend the Constitution to facilitate the extension in office of any existing individual office-holders.

2. Despite the fact that the Constitution requires consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the appointment or extension of the tenure of the DPP, there has been no consultation with the Opposition whatsoever on this proposed constitutional amendment.

3. The tabling and passing of such a Bill in the House of Representatives on the same day, will preclude due consideration and properly informed debate on the matter, and is an abuse of democratic governance and the Government’s parliamentary majority that is more in keeping with autocratic rule.

4. The DPP is a constitutional office, and there is a Constitutional Reform Committee in place that is considering reforms to the Constitution. This constitutional amendment totally sidelines that Committee, as the Committee, has not been consulted or had any discussion on this matter. The Opposition with therefore have to reconsider its participation on that Committee, if the Government proceeds with this course of action.

5. Furthermore, If the Government proceeds with this course of action, the Opposition will be seeking legal advice with a view to taking the matter to the Constitutional Court to challenge what is a serious aberration, and to seek a declaratory judgement as to the proper interpretation of the Constitution in this matter.