Questionable Conduct: The Jamaican Political Reality

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...

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] Publish at Scribd or explore others: Wills and Trusts Business & Legal dual citizenship jamaican constitutio

As noted previously Daboudb's submissions are interrelated and intertwined. In responding to Vaz' appeal of the Chief Justice's ruling, Dabdoub submits inter alia: The Respondent Dabdoub being the only candidate qualified to be elected and the only candidate who was duly nominated , is as a matter of law and by operation of the Representation of the People Act and the Constitution of Jamaica to be returned as the duly elected Member to the House of Representatives. Dabdoub, having served Notice of and the facts giving rise to Vaz' disqualification be so notorious and known to the electors that the Respondent should as a matter of law be returned to the House of Representatives. Having regard to the Chief Justice's own interpretation of S.40(2)(a) of the Jamaican Constitution, it is submitted that the Notice of Disqualification met the legal requirements of stating the facts which gave rise to the Appellants Disqualification. It is submitted that the words used in...

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...

The Chief Justice of Jamaica has handed down a definitive judgement on the interpretation to be given to section 40 (2)(a) of the Constitution of Jamaica. That judgement is on appeal. However, as it stands, there are very serious implications in respect of composition of the Parliament and the Senate. Inescapable Inferences The judgement has certain inescapable inferences: It is an inescapable inference that any sitting Member of the House of Representatives in possession of a valid US passport is in violation of Section 41(d) and as such that seat shall become vacant. It is an inescapable inference that any sitting member of the House of Representatives that as candidate in the elections who as an adult merely possessed and utilized a US passport (whether obtained fraudulently or not) was ineligible to be properly nominated. That assumes that the candidate did nothing to renounce his allegiance to that foreign State. The Parliament The Speaker has an overarch...

Consternation : Some amount of consternation has been generated by the treatment of “Commonwealth Citizens. Of particular concern is the concluding comment that: “If an adult Jamaican citizen by virtue of his own act acquires the nationality of another state – be it Commonwealth or otherwise – he is disqualified. However an adult Commonwealth citizen living in Jamaica for a year satisfies the condition of Section 39 whether or not he acquires Jamaican citizenship.” The consternation lies with adult Jamaican who have acquired citizenship of other Commonwealth countries – for example Britain , Canada , Barbados and Grenada to mention a few. Some have lived and studied in the respective territories and being duly qualified were successful in their application. Others found it necessary to take out some “insurance” in the heady days of the ideological 70’s. Indeed, there was the belief that citizenship in other Commonwealth territories meant that as a “Commonwealth Citizen” – albeit ...

“Commonwealth” not “Foreign” Some proponents of the view that Commonwealth states are not included in the term “foreign Power or State” seek to advance the following:  Chapter II of the Constitution of Jamaica deals with Citizenship. Section 12 gives the following interpretation: “Foreign country” means a country (other than the Republic of Ireland) that is not part of the Commonwealth; Hence, the term “foreign Power or State” should be construed in accordance with that of “foreign country.” As mentioned before, the proponents have yet to produce any judicial interpretation to substantiate their position. Moreover, it may be convenient to ignore that (a) the section being relied upon begins “In this Chapter – “. The interpretations are specific to Chapter II; (b) “foreign country” is not necessarily synonymous with “foreign State or Power.”  In relation to those holding Canadian, British or even Barbadian citizenship in addition to their Jamaican citizenship, it is being argued that ...