THE IRISH Council for Civil Liberties is to campaign against the so-called “Abbeylara” amendment to the Constitution, which proposes to give increased powers to parliamentary committees.
Describing itself as “Ireland’s leading independent human rights watchdog”, the council was founded in 1976 by then-senator Mary Robinson, the late Kader Asmal and others.
A news conference in Dublin tomorrow will be attended by a broad range of persons opposed to the amendment, which is seen by its critics as a threat to the rights of individual citizens.
Members of the Technical Group of left-wing and independent TDs are also expected to oppose the amendment, which will be voted on at the same time as the presidential election and the referendum on judges’ pay on October 27th.
Meanwhile, in a statement yesterday, the Council of the Law Society, the professional body representing solicitors, expressed “grave concerns” regarding the two proposed amendments, discussed by the council last Friday.
“In relation to the amendment on parliamentary inquiries, the council noted that the proposed amendment would permit parliament to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person’s conduct.
“The proposed amendment arose following a decision of the Supreme Court in the Abbeylara case that parliament did not have an inherent power to conduct inquiries that involved requiring witnesses to attend to give evidence and to produce documents, and which could make findings that adversely affected the good name of any person,” it said.
The statement adds: “While it is not unusual or unprecedented for a national parliament or legislature to have a power to conduct inquiries, extreme care must be taken in doing so. The society is concerned that the wording of the proposed amendment goes beyond merely reversing the effect of the Abbeylara decision of the Supreme Court in 2002.
“The council notes that parliamentary inquiries are an extremely powerful mechanism, sometimes dangerously so, since they can be driven by overwhelming public and political demands for culprits and even scapegoats.
“This can create a climate of hysteria that would be highly prejudicial for any individual witness summoned to give evidence.”
In relation to the amendment on judicial pay, the council confirmed that, in principle, the Law Society did not object to the objective of the amendment, but believed the particular wording was deficient in its reference to an undefined “class of persons” and may be open to abuse by another government in the future.
“The council noted that the importance of the independence of the judiciary cannot be underestimated. A society without an independent judiciary is not a democracy. It is well-recognised across the democratic world that interference with judicial pay is a classic means of interfering with judicial independence and, accordingly, great care needs to be taken about any mechanism designed to achieve the Government’s objective.”
