The Editor, Sir:

I agree with your editorial of Sunday, August 26, that the matter of the disqualification of persons with dual citizenship from being Members of the House of Representatives requires leadership. However, I do not concur that it can be spun in a way that involves both political parties. It seems to me that a charge has been proffered by the chairman of the People's National Party (PNP), Bobby Pickersgill, that there are persons that are ineligible for election that have been nominated by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). As I understand it, the expressed position of the JLP is that those bringing such charges have a duty to provide incontrovertible evidence to substantiate those charges.

The issue, therefore, is whether or not there is onus on the Leader of the Opposition to give assurance to the public that no one on the JLP ticket for the upcoming general election has dual citizenship. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition has a duty, even within the context of the competitive party politics, to see to it that the Jamaican constitution is not breached. Indeed, the prize in a general election is, among other things, to gain the right to pledge to uphold the constitution.

A reminder

It is important that the public be reminded of exactly what is at issue in this matter: The framers of the Jamaican constitution sought to give effect and protection to the notion of Jamaican sovereignty by Section 40 (2) (a) which states:

No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a senator or elected as 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.

The disqualification of persons who have dual citizenship from holding political office has been adjudicated on in the region. After the 2000 General Election in Trinidad and Tobago, (the Trinidad and Tobago constitution is similar to the Jamaican constitutio not pari material.) an election which resulted in a tie (both political parties winning 18 seats in the 36-seat Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago; the PNM then challenged the election of newly elected UNC members William Chaitan for the Pointe-a-Pierre constituency and Winston Peters (the calypsonian 'Gypsy') for the Ortoire-Mayaro constituency.

Null and void

The Court of Appeal declared that the election of these two persons was null and void because they were in violation of section 48 (1) (a) of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution. In handing down the ruling in the matter then learned CJ now President of the CCJ Mr. de la Bastide who relied upon an Australian case Sykes v Cleary [1992] had this to say:

"I can also find no warrant whatever for construing the words "or is under a declaration of allegiance to such a country" as referring only to a declaration of allegiance made otherwise than for the purpose of, or in connection with, the acquisition of citizenship. Here again the words are clear and unambiguous and it is the duty of the courts to give effect to them. If that produces a result which is no longer considered desirable in the light of the liberalisation of the law relating to dual citizenship, then it is the function of the Parliament to amend or repeal the law that it has itself enacted. For us to do so would amount, in my view, to a clear usurpation of the legislative function, one which cannot be justified by claims to be interpreting the Constitution 'generously' or as a 'living instrument'.

The constitution is clear and there is unambiguous legal precedent.

I am, etc.,

GARNET ROPER (Rev.)

Portmore

St. Catherine