Skip to main content

Lessons for Parliamentarians

There are numerous inescapable inferences from the ruling of McCalla C.J. in the Abraham Dabdoub/Daryl Vaz matter.


Lesson 1: Those Members of Parliament who are holders of valid US passports are in contravention of Section 40 (2)(a) and Section 41(1)(d) of the Constitution of Jamaica. If they had obtained the passport prior to Nomination Day, then they were not qualified to be elected. If they had obtained the passport after taking their seats, then those seats shall become vacant.

Lesson 2: If the action is properly brought before the Court and cogent admissible evidence is produced to substantiate the claims (at least the validity and use of the US passport), then the Court is likely to order a by-election.

Lesson 3: The underlying issue is not that of the possession of a US passport and its usage. Rather, the crux is the “declaration or acknowledge of allegiance or adherence to a foreign Power or State”. The possession and use of a passport issued by a foreign Power or State is only one of the many circumstances indicative of such allegiance or adherence.

Lesson 4: The learned Chief Justice confined her ruling to the specifics of the matter. There was no need to expound on the interpretation to be given to the phrase “foreign Power or State” since all parties agreed that the USA is a foreign Power or State. The Members of Parliament who are holders of dual Commonwealth citizenship should be equally concerned. It can be argued that “a foreign Power or State” as utilized by the Constitution of Jamaica means “any Power or State except Jamaica”.

Lesson 5: The ruling has similar consequences for the Senators. If they are in possession of valid US passports, then they are not qualified to be appointed as Senators. Being deemed Members of the Upper House, those in contravention should tender their resignation immediately. Furthermore, those holding passports issued by countries other than Jamaica should not wait on the courts to disqualify them.

Lesson 6: The Nomination Papers need to be amended to include a clause requiring the prospective candidate to affirm that he is “a citizen of Jamaica only” – or words to that effect. This will put every candidate on notice.

If the lessons from McCalla CJ. are learnt by the political directorate of both political parties, then the only issue which remains is “How to correct the situation?”

Correction

The offending Members of the House of Representatives fear public embarrassment and the revelation of their citizenship status resulting in the separation from their positions. The Prime Minister has the power to finesse the exercise by calling a General Election. Such would facilitate those wishing to renounce foreign citizenship status in the hope of regaining their position; also those wishing to hold on to their foreign accolades thereby forgoing election or appointment.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
3 comments
Read more

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...
4 comments
Read more

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...
2 comments
Read more