Skip to main content

Commonwealth Clarification

There is growing public confusion surrounding the status of Commonwealth citizens and Commonwealth states in the dual citizenship debate. The confusion is fueled by:
  • The basic qualification of being a Commonwealth citizen - Section 39(a);
  • The seat of a member of either house becoming vacant if he ceases to be a Commonwealth citizen - Section 41 (1) (d);
  • The disqualification and vacancy provisions of being under any "acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or State" - Section 40(2)(a) and Section 41 (1)(d) respectively
The Constitution of Jamaica is silent on the interpretation to be accorded to the phrase "foreign Power or State". Some attorneys-at-law and public commentators are of the view that Commonwealth states are exempt from the said categorization. The issue is of paramount importance as there are Members owing allegiance to Commonwealth states other than Jamaica in both Houses.

The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are empowered ,under Section 44, to deal with questions concerning the valid election or appointment of members of either House, or vacancy under Section 41 of the Constitution. The court could be moved to make a declaration of the interpretation to the phrase "foreign Power of State" as used in the Constitution. Any person, including the Attorney General, may institute such proceedings - Section 44(2).

We have posited the view, that in the absence of any definitive interpretation mandated by the Constitution, the settled interpretation under International Law becomes applicable. In short, any state other than Jamaica is "foreign" for the purposes of composition of Parliament.

Irreparable Damage

Currently, the divided allegiance issue is being dealt with in an ad hoc fashion as determined primarily by the courts. Consequently, the public is being kept in suspense whilst awaiting litigation procedures. Unfortunately the impression is given that mainly persons with US citizenship are being targeted. The Constitution of Jamaica has no inherent national discrimination. Indeed it would be tidier if all nationalities were put on the table regarding the composition of Parliament. The interpretation of the phrase "foreign Power or State" is central to this exercise. The integrity of Parliament should not be subjected to prolonged questioning. There is the real possibility of irreparable damage to institutions underpinning the foundations or our democracy. The process is taking much too long.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It seems to me that the designation "Foreign power or State" could not be applicable to Commonwealth citizens in this debate in so far as we all share the same Head of State. However if Jamaica becomes a Republic then any State other than Jamaica would be legitimately deemed foreign.
Anonymous said…
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse!!!

Popular posts from this blog

Appealing the By-Election Order

Abraham Dabdoub's appeal against the Chief Justice's ruling can be divided into two overlapping and intertwined phases: That the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to award the seat to the only duly nominated candidate on Nomination Day, August 7, 2007 in the constituency of West Portland; and That the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to recognize and properly apply the distinction between " status " and " conduct " in coming to her decision on disqualification based on dual citizenship. Numerous cases on votes being declared to be "thrown away" and the next candidate being duly seated by the court are cited. The detailed submissions are set out below: Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law

"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 ...