Skip to main content

Dual But Unequal - The dual citizenship debate (Part 1)

Introduction

Some Jamaicans enjoy the protection and privileges of being citizens of other countries. Most are citizens of Jamaica only. Indeed many with citizenship of more than one state – and even as many as two more – have played critical roles in the development of Jamaica. In reality the Jamaican state recognizes that Jamaican citizens may be citizens of other states but does not prescribe any limitations on the number.

However, the Constitution of Jamaica prescribes certain limitations on those enjoying multiple citizenship in so far as their participation in the Parliament. Such limitations – termed “qualification” and “disqualification” are specifically stated in Section 39 and Section 40 respectively.

Section 39

The individuals seeking membership in the Senate and House of Representatives must be (a) a Commonwealth citizen of at least 21 years old; and (b) has been ordinarily resident in Jamaica for twelve months prior to appointment to the Senate or nomination for election to the House of Representatives.

However the individual concerned must not fall within the disqualification clauses specified in Section 40.

Section 40


There are a number of conditions specified which would cause this adult Commonwealth citizen resident in Jamaica for the preceding twelve months to be disqualified from being appointed to the Senate or nominated for election to the House of Representatives. These include holding public office such as Judge of the Supreme Court, Judge of the Court of Appeal, member of a defence force; adjudged or otherwise declared bankrupt; certified insane; serving a sentence of six months or more; convicted of election related offence etc.

For the purposes of this discussion focus is confied to dual citizenship debate. Section 40 (2) states

“(2) No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives who –

(a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or State:”

ANALYSIS

 Section 9 gives meaning to the classification “Commonwealth Citizens”. Indeed such was deemed necessary in order to supplement the capabilities of the newly emerging sovereign state. The pool of expertise from the Commonwealth family was harnessed. Many of the officials of these ex-colonial territories hold British passports.

 The primary operative condition is “by virtue of this own act”. The individual must have been capable of doing the act and has chosen so to do. Moreover, that condition is not operative if it was occasioned by another, by operation of law, or by conditions outside the control/decision of the individual concerned.

 The condition outlined is not confined to the taking of an Oath of Allegiance – a necessary requirement of applications for citizenship. That acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence may be occasioned by membership in the defence force, holding important public office, national security or official representation roles.

 A “foreign Power or State” is any Power or State other than Jamaica. This construction is no doubt controversial although it is settled in International Law and appointed by a number of decided cases. The controversy is motivated primarily because it casts a wider net since it would include those who are holders of citizenship of Commonwealth states.

Comments

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 ...

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...

DEA: Book Review #1

Three book reviews of   "Dudus: The Extradition of Jamaica's #1 Drug Don" have been published; two in The Jamaica Observer and one in the Jamaica Gleaner. The first was by Rev Dr. Devon Dick entitled 'Devon Dick | Dudus Revisited By Dr Paul Ashley ' published in the Jamaica Gleaner Thursday, September 13, 2018: "Recently, Dr Paul Ashley, attorney-at-law and political commentator, published Dudus: The Extradition of Jamaica's #1 Drug Don, 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, Ashley went to primary sources and published transcripts from both the Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and West Kingston commissions of enquiry. There are such documents scattered over the seven chapters. Ashley provides an overview of this watershed 2010 event then examines the confidentiality breach, the delay...