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

Ask the Framers

A lot of time and energy have been devoted to what has been loosely called the "DUAL CITIZENSHIP DEBATE". Much interest has been accorded to the status of Jamaican citizens who have voluntarily acquired citizenship status of other Commonwealth states. More specifically, are such persons disqualified under Section 40 .2 (a) of the Constitution of Jamaica from either being elected as Members of Parliament, or appointed to the Senate? There are a number of ways to ascertain the true intention of the framers of the Constitution of Jamaica. The first is quite evident: read the words used in the section and employ a literal meaning. In case of some ambiguity, resort can be had to how similar sections and phrases used have been interpreted in other Commonwealth jurisdictions in the event that courts in Jamaica have not clarified the situation. However, there remains another avenue: ask the framers if they are still around, or consult their writings on the subject if such is availabl
3 comments
Read more