Skip to main content

The Chief Justice's Ruling - Dabdoub v Vaz

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]
Labels:

Comments

Yann said…
I came across your blog while researching the Vaz - Dabdoub case. Despite agreeing with the judicial decision, I feel that significance of the case has been over looked and with it an opportunity for greater clarification of the constitution.
May 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DEA: Contracts with GOJ

Christopher 'Dudus' Coke  reputedly had tremendous wealth, powerful financial and commercial connections locally and internationally.The actual amount, nature, extent and location have never been made public.The proceeds of his drug running would have been strategically laundered with the assistance of shell companies strategically based in facilitating jurisdictions; business and property holdings arranged so as not to reveal the beneficial owner; and wherever possible, business conducted on a cash or barter basis. Coke had many business associates cum partners and substantial contracts with the Government of Jamaica (GOJ). The full extent of his business relationships with the GOJ has never been made public or verified. Nationwide News Network gave some indication of the number of contracts and the spread of government agencies involved: “Records from the Office of the Contractor General show that Incomparable Enterprise, a company owned and operated by Tivoli Gardens don...
4 comments
Read more

"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 ...
3 comments
Read more