Questionable Conduct: The Jamaican Political Reality

The Constitutional Court of Jamaica  has declared: "(1) That the request for and procurement of pre-signed and undated letters of resignation and letters of authorization by the Leader of the Opposition from persons to be appointed or appointed Senators to the Senate of Jamaica upon his nomination is inconsistent with the Constitution, contrary to public policy, unlawful, and is , accordingly, null and void. (2) That the pre-signed and undated letters of resignation and letters of authorization, as well as the manner of their use to effect the resignation of Senators ( the claimant, in particular ) from the Senate of Jamaica, are inconsistent with the Constitution, contrary to public policy and are, accordingly, null and void." [para 234] So the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition--a constitutionally recognized position-- has been found by the Supreme Court to have acted unconstitutionally, contrary to public policy, and unlawfully. That has profound implicat...

On Friday, February 27. 2009, the Court of Appeal announced it's decision in the Dabdoub v. Vaz appeals devoid of a written reasoned judgement. Politically, the notion of the people deciding who shall represent them in Parliament, is incontestable. The mobilization of the political party's electoral machinery has untold beneficial effects for constitutents as it is at election time that politicians are forced to "pay" special attention to the needs of the people. Legally, there are a number of serious concerns: We have a Constitution and have accepted the notion of the Rule of Law; The courts are the enforcers of the Constitution and the Rule of Law; The courts' decisions must reflect this unique mandate and be open to public scrutiny; Obviously, the Court of Appeal was not ready to hand down a written reasoned judgement . The unavoidable question is: What factors determined this announcement at this time? For a matter dealing with the Constitution of Jamaica ...

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...