Lawyer and activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor says the Constitution Review Implementation Committee will not determine which proposals should become law.

According to him, the committee’s role is to translate decisions reached through the political process into legal instruments.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, Mr Barker-Vormawor said the committee has been given a technical mandate rather than the authority to take policy positions.

“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 the committee will instead monitor stakeholders' views and relay them to the government as the reform process unfolds.

“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?”

Mr Barker-Vormawor said the committee could also facilitate discussions among stakeholders to build consensus on the proposed reforms.

He stressed that constitutional reform cannot be forced through without broad agreement, given the parliamentary and referendum thresholds required.

“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.”

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

He explained that once political consensus is reached, the committee’s drafting instructions would reflect that agreement.

“When there’s a consensus agreed, I’m sure that our drafting and instructions will change along the lines in which all the partners agree, and in that regard, we will then be able to translate that.”

Mr Barker-Vormawor was emphatic that the committee itself will not decide which proposals should ultimately appear in constitutional amendment bills.

“But I want to emphasise that 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 pointed to Parliament and political parties as the institutions that will ultimately provide the political direction for the committee’s technical 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 work will go.”

“We are essentially clay in their hands,” he said.

He likened the committee’s role to that of the Electoral Commission or a midwife, saying its responsibility is to facilitate and deliver a process rather than determine its outcome.

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

“So, we are delivering what the political process puts in our hands to deliver. We can’t change, you know, one black hair to grey.”

The Constitution Review Implementation Committee was established to help translate agreed constitutional reform proposals into concrete legal and institutional changes.

Its work follows the government’s broader process of reviewing and implementing recommendations on constitutional reforms.