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
Posts
It has become blasé to buttress one's position on any interpretation of the Constitution of Jamaica with the hallowed but hackneyed phrase "the intent of the framers". Perhaps the best way to clarify any ambiguity arising in the interpretation of the actual words and phrases employed in the document is to consult the said framers who are still alive, or their memoirs, personal notes, or interviews if the framers are no longer available. As regards the "dual citizenship" vis-a-vis membership in either house, we have referred to the intervention of at least one of the framers - the Most Honourable Edward Seaga. Such a source may prove politically inconvenient to some, but in the absence of public interventions from a more politically convenient source, we are forced to accept Seaga's clarification . Another method of ascertaining the "intent of the framers" of the Constitution of Jamaica rests with the application of one the cardinal principles of in
The Court of Appeal did not address the interpretation of the phrase " foreign Power or State " in S.40(2)(a) of the Constitution of Jamaica. This was a missed opportunity since the interpretation to be accorded to the said phrase is central to any discussion of "dual citizenship" in the Jamaican polity. This omission may be justified by the fact that the issue was not raisd before the Court in the Dabdoub/Vaz appeals as it was fully recognized that the USA was a " foreign Power or State ." The issue not being properly before the Court, the matter should have been avoided. Indeed it is only Smith J.A. who did not venture an opinion on divided loyalty as regards membership in the House of Representatives. Panton P. : 35. " The framers of the constitution clearly intended that Jamaicans who by their own act sought and received non-Commonwealth citizenship, or having not so sought it, nevertheless voluntarily acknowledged allegiance to such countries, sh
A lot of time and energy have been devoted to what has been loosely called the "DUAL CITIZENSHIP DEBATE". Much interest has been accorded to the status of Jamaican citizens who have voluntarily acquired citizenship status of other Commonwealth states. More specifically, are such persons disqualified under Section 40 .2 (a) of the Constitution of Jamaica from either being elected as Members of Parliament, or appointed to the Senate? There are a number of ways to ascertain the true intention of the framers of the Constitution of Jamaica. The first is quite evident: read the words used in the section and employ a literal meaning. In case of some ambiguity, resort can be had to how similar sections and phrases used have been interpreted in other Commonwealth jurisdictions in the event that courts in Jamaica have not clarified the situation. However, there remains another avenue: ask the framers if they are still around, or consult their writings on the subject if such is availabl
The Court of Appeal has handed down its written reasons for upholding the ruling of the Chief Justice.In order to fully appreciate the reasoning, it is prudent to place such in the context of the deliberations before the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice goes into detail the arguments that were pertinent to her decisions. As is the pattern, such is posted without any comment. For what it is worth, my comments have been posted in earlier blogs: notably Beyond McCalla and Lessons for Parliamentarians . Dabdoub v Vaz[1] Publish at Scribd or explore others: Wills and Trusts Business & Legal dual citizenship jamaican constitutio
Given the handing down of the written judgement by the Court of Appeal , the pending by-election and the real possibility of a number of such by-elections due care should be taken to ensure that the costly mistakes are not repeated by feigned ignorance of the disqualification provisions contained in the Constitution of Jamaica.Accordingly, we take this opportunity to post a publication made in the Gleaner sometime ago: New Nomination Paper needed for elections published: Tuesday May 6, 2008 The Editor, Sir: Elections - general or a series of by-elections - are in the air. Political parties have begun a not-so-subtle propaganda campaign in the mass media. The issue of a person not being qualified to be nominated and the public awareness of the possible disqualifications have come to the fore via the ruling of McCalla, CJ, in the Dabdoub v Vaz et al. The current Nomination Paper only focuses on the basic qualification in Section 39 of the Constitution of Jamaica without stating the requ
In the interest of widespread dissemination of a much-awaited judgment, we have facilitated easy access to the document. We do so without comment; so that you will not be influenced in arriving at your own conclusions. Our analysis will be conveyed in another post. In the meanwhile, read the judgement in the context of the submissions made before the court. These have been posted earlier; so just scroll down and use the inset. Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Legal notice of disqualifi allegiance to a fore
There is a raging debate over the constitutional position of a Jamaican citizen who has acquired the citizenship status of another Commonwealth state and his eligibility to sit in Parliament. In short, whether Section 40. (2) (a) captures such an individual—commonly referred to as a “Commonwealth dual citizen”. We have submitted on numerous occassions that such an individual is disqualified from being duly nominated for election (House of Representatives); disqualified from being duly appointed (Senate); and should such a status be achieved after being seated in Parliament, then that seat shall become vacant . An historical examination of the development of the Constitution of Jamaica since Independence reveals in very clear and precise terms how the matter of Jamaican citizenship was to be treated in cases where another citizenship status was acquired by a Jamaican citizen. Section 8, side-captioned “ Deprivation of citizenship on acquisition or exercise of rights of another country
Source:Jamaica Observer 4.3.09 Having addressed this matter repeatedly, it now seems almost bizarre for the People's National Party (PNP) to have announced the selection of a person holding dual citizenship to contest the up-coming by-election in the West Portland constituency. This is against the background of a prolonged and continuing litigation involving the Constitution of Jamaica and the dis-qualification of sitting Members of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Given the decision of the Court of Appeal - the final arbiter in Election Petition matters - which upheld the Chief Justice’s ruling and dismissed all the appeals, it is indeed less than prudent to open a potential avenue of legal contention to nominate one who is the holder of a Canadian passport. The impression is being openly propagated by some Attorneys and the mass media that the holders of passports from Commonwealth states are not disqualified from being duly nominated; or if a sitting Member, for that s
On Friday, February 27. 2009, the Court of Appeal announced it's decision in the Dabdoub v. Vaz appeals devoid of a written reasoned judgement. Politically, the notion of the people deciding who shall represent them in Parliament, is incontestable. The mobilization of the political party's electoral machinery has untold beneficial effects for constitutents as it is at election time that politicians are forced to "pay" special attention to the needs of the people. Legally, there are a number of serious concerns: We have a Constitution and have accepted the notion of the Rule of Law; The courts are the enforcers of the Constitution and the Rule of Law; The courts' decisions must reflect this unique mandate and be open to public scrutiny; Obviously, the Court of Appeal was not ready to hand down a written reasoned judgement . The unavoidable question is: What factors determined this announcement at this time? For a matter dealing with the Constitution of Jamaica
Abe Dabdoub and his esteemed legal team have brought to the fore a wide array of case authorities to support their position. Below is a case which was not cited in the original submissions before the Court of Appeal but was unearthed subsequently. It is interesting since it emanates from a Commonwealth jurisdiction. Per Shah J. " We are again unable to see any logic in the assumption that votes cast in favour of a person who is regarded by the Returning Officer as validly nominated, but who is in truth disqualified, could still be treated as valid votes. " Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda v _indian Case Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Business & Legal election petition constitutional law