Skip to main content

Real Sanctions Needed

The dual citizenship saga has demonstrated the clear and urgent need for effective deterrents in respect of breaches in the supreme law of the land – the Constitution – by those sworn to uphold its provisions. It is evident that political expediency has trumped principle. Our law makers have effectively turned a blind eye to their colleagues who knowingly and blatantly perpetuate breaches of the Constitution.

The offending parties wait to be “discovered” and then take advantage of the pathetically slow pace of justice to prolong the breach. The substantial cost of civil litigation have forced some to fess up and hurriedly take the appropriate action to regularize their occupancy. However, the cost of litigation apart, the offenders are able to keep their ill-gotten gains – the proceeds of their constitutional crimes.

As presently constituted, the penalties under the Constitution are laughable and have never been enforced publicly in breach. In the absence of a culture of transparency, accountability and resignation, it becomes necessary to outline in detail real sanctions to deter would-be offenders and punish those lacking the requisite political integrity. To that end, it is being proposed that the Parliament consider amending the Constitution of Jamaica to include the following provision:

Where a Member of Parliament has occupied a seat in Parliament in breach of the Constitutional provisions for a specific period of time, that Member shall not be entitled to the remuneration and pension provisions that have been paid or will be due to be paid for that specific period of time.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I agree with you, it is time to revisit and amend the constitutionto include your suggestion The ill-gottn gains should be channeled back to the treasury and leave these bare faced dishonourable usurpers bereft, naked and hungry.
Anonymous said…
Good Article

Popular posts from this blog

"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 ...

By-Election Predisposition

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...

Communication Error!

Jamaica Gleaner Contributor, Martin Henry has written an interesting article entitled “Victory for the rule of law” published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 . In his last paragraph Henry stated: " A troubled citizen's concerns about the legitimacy of laws passed in the past with the participation of MPs who may have been in Daryl Vaz's dual-allegiance position was published as The Letter of the Day by The Gleaner last Wednesday [April 16]. Lawyer Dr Paul Ashley made a great deal out of the same issue when we both appeared on the TV programme Impact on that same day. The Constitution dissolves these fears in the wisely anticipatory provision of Section 51 (2): "The presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings." Interpreting legal provisions is an exercise fraught with dangers, especially if one is not acquainted with the rules governing interpretation. Without...