Skip to main content

Intent of the Framers

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 interpretation of any constitution - internal consistency. The various provisions of such a document must be interpreted in such a manner as to effect harmony and internal consistency of the entire document. The provisions of the Constitution, being itself the Supreme Law, cannot be in conflict with each other for the Constitution itself declares any law found to be inconsistent with the said Constitution to be null and void.

Interestingly the Constitution of Jamaica once contained a section, as discussed before, dealing with "Deprivation of citizenship on acquisition or exercise of rights of another citizenship".

8. (1) If the Governor ­General is satisfied that any citizen of Jamaica has at any time after the fifth day of August 1962 acquired by registration, naturalization or other voluntary and formal act (other than marriage) the citizenship of any country other than Jamaica, the Governor General may by order deprive that person of his citizenship.

(2) If the Governor General is satisfied that any citizen of Jamaica has at any time after the fifth day of August 1962 voluntarily claimed and exercised in a country other than Jamaica any rights available to him under the law of that country, being rights accorded exclusively to its citizens, the Governor ­General may by order deprive that person of his citizenship.

It is untenable to interpret or conclude that the Constitution of Jamaica does not bar its citizens possessing any number of additional Commonwealth citizenship from citizenship from sitting in either house (as Panton P. has done) when the very same Constitution specifically authorizes the depriving of that individual of his Jamaican citizenship on the grounds that he has "voluntarily claimed and exercised in a country other than Jamaica any rights available to him under the law of that country, being rights accorded exclusively to its citizens".

The operative phrase is "a country other than Jamaica". Those who adhere to the view that the phrase "foreign Power or State" utilized in Disqualification and Vacancy provisions for membership of the Senate or House of Representatives [Sec.40(2)(a)], [Sec. 41(1)(d) exempts Commonwealth states face an insurmountable hurdle.

It cannot be that the Constitution of Jamaica at one and the same time does not bar a Jamaican citizen who has acquired citizenship in any number of Commonwealth states from being elected to sit in the House of Representatives or appointed to the Senate, but contemplates the deprivation of his Jamaican citizenship precisely on those very same grounds. Moreover it cannot be argued that the phrase "a country other than Jamaica" fails to capture Commonwealth countries.

Admittedly S. 8 has been amended subsequently. Nevertheless, reference is highlighted in an attempt to discern the "intent of the framers" at a particular point in time. Perhaps today's framers will have a different intent. Whatever the intent the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution must be internally consistent.

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...

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