Secretary to the Constitution Review Implementation Committee, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, says the committee will not determine which proposals ultimately become bills in the constitutional reform process.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, the lawyer and activist said the committee’s mandate is technical rather than political.

“Our brief is clear. It was made clear to us that we are not another post-Prempeh committee to take policy positions. It’s not a policy body; it’s a technical body supposed to move along what the political process settles,” he said.

His comments come as various stakeholders are expected to submit position papers on the proposed constitutional reforms, including the government’s own position.

Mr Barker-Vormawor said the committee’s role will be to relay stakeholders' views to the government and facilitate discussions where necessary.

“We have to be able to relay that to government and say that this is what different stakeholders are saying. Are our instructions still firm, or are there movements around this?” he said.

He said the committee could also convene discussions among stakeholders to help build consensus around the reform process.

“Maybe we’re going to convene conversations among the different stakeholders so that there might be some consensus generated,” he added.

Mr Barker-Vormawor stressed that constitutional reform cannot be pushed through without broad agreement, particularly because of the parliamentary and referendum thresholds involved.

“You can’t have a process which you will bulldoze your way through. It requires constant conversations. It requires constant agreement and compromises along the way,” he said.

He therefore described the exercise as a collective national process rather than a project belonging to one political party.

“So, this is not a, you know, a one-party project. It has to be something that all the stakeholders agree as to the plan for reform,” he said.

According to him, once consensus is reached through the political process, the committee’s drafting work and instructions will reflect that agreement.

But he was emphatic that the committee itself will not decide which proposals should become part of reform bills.

“The key decision-making as to what proposals go and end up in the bills is beyond our pay grade. That’s not our decision to make,” he said.

He pointed to Parliament and political parties as the institutions that ultimately provide the political direction for the committee’s work.

“We have elected members of Parliament for a reason. We have political parties that seek a mandate for reasons. They are the voices that will direct how our way of work will go. We are essentially clay in their hands,” he said.

Mr Barker-Vormawor likened the committee’s role to that of the Electoral Commission or a midwife, stressing that its responsibility is to facilitate and deliver the process rather than determine its outcome.

“The midwife does not determine the sex of the baby, doesn’t determine the colour of the baby. You just deliver the process,” he said.

The Constitution Review Implementation Committee was established by President John Mahama to help translate agreed-upon constitutional reform proposals into implementable measures, including the preparation of the necessary legislative instruments.

The committee is, therefore, expected to work within the political direction and consensus emerging from the reform process rather than independently determine the substance of the reforms.