Skip to main content

Allegiance and Citizenship

It can be argued that there are certain positions within the administration of any independent nation-state which should be held by people having undivided allegiance to the nation-state involved. These positions are of critical importance to the conduct of the nation's interaction with the international community, and symbolize the emotional aspect of being an independent state - that is, national identity.

The list includes, but is not limited to:
. Legislators - MPs and Senators (especially Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition)
. Governor General
. Chief of the Defence Force
. Attorney General
. Solicitor-General
. President, Court of Appeal
. Chief Justice
. Members of the foreign service serving overseas.

People holding those positions should have allegiance to the host country only. They should possess exclusive citizenship during their tenure.

It matters not if they enjoyed multiple citizenships prior to consideration for the positions listed. However, they should renounce all other citizenships before they are elected or appointed to those special positions. Furthermore, your citizenship status at birth or as an adult should not matter, provided that you are exclusively undivided, undiluted in your allegiance to the country that you wish to serve.

In addition to renouncing any other citizenship before acceding to any of the positions listed, the Oath of Office should explicitly include (i) unequivocal voluntary renunciation of all other citizenships and (ii) acknowledgement of the exclusivity of the citizenship of the host country.

Jamaica today cannot afford to differentiate between Jamaicans with dual or even multiple citizenships. What is of paramount importance is the 100 per cent allegiance to Jamaica, a requirement when individuals occupy those critical positions. The constitution needs to be amended to reflect the current socio-economic political realities in clear, unambiguous terms.

Published in the Jamaica Observer on Wednesday, April 23, 2008.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Declaration" Not "Determination"

Both the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have conveniently confused calls for declaration of citizenship status by Members of either House with the determination of questions as to membership of either House. The Chief Justice of Jamaica has determined that individuals who have renewed their US passports and travelled thereon are disqualified from being validly elected or appointed as a Member of either House. Proponents of the impotence of the Speaker, in the matter of requiring a declaration by individual members, have sought to rely on Section 44 (1) of the Constitution which states: Any question whether - a. any person has been validly elected or appointed as a member of either House; or b. any member of either House has vacated his seat therein or is required, under the provisions of subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 41 of this Constitution, to cease to exercise any of his functions as a member, shall be determined by the Supreme Court ...

By-Election Predisposition

Introduction A massive amount of time and resources have been devoted to the issue of the course to be properly taken once a victorious electoral candidate has been found to be "disqualified" under S. 40 of the Constitution of Jamaica. Simply put, the crux of the matter is whether the second place candidate should, without more, be accorded the seat by the court; or that the said election be deemed null and void and a by-election ordered to decide the people's representative. This matter consumed inordinate amounts of energy - judicial and otherwise - due primarily to the silence of the Constitution on what recourse should be adopted in such circumstance. A cardinal tenet of democratic government is that the people must decide their representatives and not a select grouping - no matter their qualification or status. The Constitution of Jamaica fully recognized this imperative even though it expressly delegates the determination of questions as to membership of either Ho...

Communication Error!

Jamaica Gleaner Contributor, Martin Henry has written an interesting article entitled “Victory for the rule of law” published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 . In his last paragraph Henry stated: " A troubled citizen's concerns about the legitimacy of laws passed in the past with the participation of MPs who may have been in Daryl Vaz's dual-allegiance position was published as The Letter of the Day by The Gleaner last Wednesday [April 16]. Lawyer Dr Paul Ashley made a great deal out of the same issue when we both appeared on the TV programme Impact on that same day. The Constitution dissolves these fears in the wisely anticipatory provision of Section 51 (2): "The presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings." Interpreting legal provisions is an exercise fraught with dangers, especially if one is not acquainted with the rules governing interpretation. Without...