Daryl Vaz, who continues to occupy the seat in the House of Representatives for the constituency of West Portland, had said he had accepted the ruling by Chief Justice McCalla that he was ineligible for membership in the legislature because of his citizenship of the United States, which he vigorously sought to maintain.

Now, though, Mr Vaz has challenged the judge's finding, arguing that Justice McCalla was wrong in her interpretation of the Constitution on the matter. He has, in effect, also cross-appealed the claim by Abe Dabdoub - Mr Vaz's opponent in last September's general election - that Justice McCalla erred in ordering a by-election, rather than awarding him the West Portland seat. It is Mr Dabdoub's contention that he was the only lawfully nominated candidate.

We suspect that political calculation informed what some will see as a retreat by Mr Vaz from what he parleyed as the moral high ground when he accepted the court's ruling, renounced his US citizenship and declared himself ready to fight the by-election. The factors for consideration include the ruling Jamaica Labour Party's razor-thin majority in the House and the likelihood that Mr Vaz will be allowed to stay in the legislature until the appeal is finalised, perhaps at the Privy Council, Jamaica's final court. Indeed, it is instructive that Mr Vaz rode out the 42-day stay of execution of her ruling that was allowed by Justice McCalla, even as he called on parliamentary colleagues who, like himself, hold foreign citizenship, to declare themselves and take appropriate corrective action.

thorough review needed

Of course, as we have said before, there needs to be a thorough review of that section of the Constitution that bars Jamaicans from the legislature if they are by "own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to any foreign power or state". This, on the face of it, is likely to be in conflict with an attempt at a greater and fuller engagement of Jamaicans in the diaspora, who contribute substantially to the economy and have much more to offer. Indeed, several countries agree on the need for this flexibility.

However, the law is the law; it ought to be a shackle, establishing the boundaries beyond which the society strays into anarchical and anti-democratic territory. And the Constitution is the supreme law, setting the contours within which other laws can be set. Selective application of the Constitution, therefore, is potentially ruinous to social and political order.

In that regard, Mr Vaz is correct in his calls for those 'members' of the legislature whose presence may be in breach of the Constitution to 'out' themselves. Based on the report in this newspaper a fortnight ago, there may be more than a few persons who fall in the category.

While we would want to believe that decency and morality would propel the members to do the right thing, we are clear that this is a matter that ought not be left only to the individual parliamentarians. Indeed, the Speaker should ask for a declaration from each member of his or her citizenship status, and from there, seek a judicial review of those whom he may deem to be in breach. The party leaders need, at the same time, to fashion a response to the potential fallout.