The case of Dabdoub vs Vaz has gained traction in the psyche of many, because at its core was the principle that a foreigner should not sit as a member of our nation's Parliament.

That principle I embrace and hold dear, even in the face of Constitutional provisions which make exceptions for foreigners who are citizens of the British Commonwealth.

Meaning of sovereignty

Indeed, one is constrained to seek answers as to how those provisions enabling foreigners came to be enshrined in our laws.

The matter goes to the heart and true meaning of sovereignty and independence. This is especially so where independence was won after centuries of slavery and exploitation.

In this situation, it is untenable that the "descendants, heirs and successors" of our former slave masters are entitled to sit in our Parliament and "make laws for the good governance" of the newly-liberated people. Surely, the spirits of Nanny, Paul Bogle, Sam Sharpe and George William Gordon must be asking 'how could this be?'

Law as an ass

The truth is that much of the energy generated by the principle that no foreigner should sit in the Jamaican Parliament will be lost by the People's National Party's nomination of a foreigner, a Canadian, as its candidate in the by-election necessitated by the election of a foreigner, an American, to our Parliament in the 2007 general elections.

Only a few things can be more unpalatable than the law posturing as an ass. Politics without principles is one of the few.

I am, etc.,

DELFORD G. MORGAN

Savanna-la-Mar PO

Westmoreland