Skip to main content

Appealing Dual Citizenship Qualification

Daryl Vaz has appealed the Chief Justice's ruling that:

  1. On Nomination Day, August 7, 2007, he was not qualified to be elected to the House of Representatives for the constituency of West Portland;
  2. Vaz' nomination on that day in invalid, null and void and of no legal effect. Hence he was not duly returned or elected as a Member of the House of Representatives.
In sum the Chief Justice found that Vaz at the time of his nomination was in breach of S.40(2) (a) of the Constitution of Jamaica, viz:
"No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator or elected as a member of the House of Representatives who - (a) is by virtue of his own act under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a Foreign Power or State"

Vaz' appeal against the disqualification based on his dual citizenship is centred around:

  • The Chief Justice failed to give effect to the plain meaning of the words of S.40(2)(a);
  • The disqualification does not apply to dual nationals who acquire citizenship involuntarily;
  • Expressio unius exclusio alterius;
  • In any event acquisition and travelling on a passport did not amount to acknowledgment of allegiance.
The detailed submissions are set out below:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dudus:The Extradition Of Jamaica's #1 Drug Don

We have posted the 3 book reviews that have been published in the Jamaican newspapers. There is now available on Youtube an interview done in late 2018. Below is the introduction by Angry People Smiling: "Dr Paul Ashley, Attorney-at-Law and Political Commentator, published Dudus: The Extradition of Jamaica's #1 Drug Don, a book which recounts the "Machinations of the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) to delay and frustrate the extradition of Jamaica's premier drug lord, Christopher 'Dudus' Coke." To achieve that goal, Dr Ashley went to primary sources and published transcripts from both, the Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and West Kingston Commissions of Enquiry. Documents are scattered over the seven chapters. Dr Ashley provides an overview of this watershed 2010 event then examines the confidentiality breach, the delays and tactics, the machinations of both the governments of Jamaica and USA, and finally, the escape and capture of Dudus, who was wanted t...

Tivoli COE: Clarifying the US Role

"The full extent of U.S. involvement in the operation remains unclear."                           Mattathias Schwartz, The New Yorker , August 3, 2012 That statement comes from the leading researcher on the role of the USA in the May 2010 military operation in Tivoli Gardens, Jamaica. The Tivoli Commission of Enquiry (COE)  cannot fulfill its mandate if it fails to clarify further the role the USA played in the operation. Clarification can come from a number of sources. Then Prime Minister & Minister of Defence, Bruce Golding, has given Schwartz a most interesting interview. However, there are certain assertions that the COE may wish to seek clarification. For example: Golding requested the US authorities  to provide "aerial surveillance"that would assist the security forces in managing the operation.Golding claims that he had in mind "satellite images." Clarify : The exact nature of the aerial s...

"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 ...