The Editor, Sir:

A third by-election may now be called after Supreme Court judge Justice Lloyd Hibbert hands down his ruling on the dual-citizenship controversy involving the NW Clarendon parliamentary seat. Is there a better way to mash up the country - to cause money to be spent, which we cannot afford, and to waste time, which should be spent in solving the country's many problems?

Until the Constitution is updated to address more rationally the issue of dual citizenship and parliamentary representation, the hope that the Government and Opposition can agree on an equitable out-of-court solution seems dismal. In the meantime, we all lose indirectly.

Abka Fitz-Henley asked in his letter of July 31 headlined 'The hypocrisy of condemning dual citizenship' : "... Is the spirit of the law intended to punish individuals for deciding to serve ... rather than serving overseas?" Ken Jones provides an interesting perspective in The Gleaner of August 31, 2007. In summary, he writes: " ... Jamaica recognises and accepts the concept of dual nationality for its citizens. In our case, the benefits are significant, not least of which are the huge remittances coming from those living abroad; and when it comes to the dual citizen taking part in parliamentary elections, the trend today is for greater liberalism and flexibility. In fact, any country seeking to deliberately deprive its dual citizens of electoral rights would appear to be stepping in the wrong direction.

"The British, who supervised the writing of the Jamaican Constitution, are accommodating. The leader of their House of Lords is Baroness Amos, a Guyanese. Jamaican Lord Morris also sits in the British Upper House. I haven't heard of anyone demanding that they relinquish citizenship in the land of their birth. This I regard as enlightened governance.

"Canada's John Turner, who in 1984 succeeded Pierre Trudeau as prime minister, retained his United Kingdom citizenship while in office, and still does. Likewise, Stephane Dion, the present head of the Liberal Party of Canada and leader of the opposition, has retained his French citizenship without being put under pressure."

Rationalising citizenship legislation

Jamaica is not alone. In spite of the above, Canada seems to have difficulty in rationalising its citizenship legislation. In 1977, the updated Canadian Citizenship Act recognised dual citizenship for the first time. Previously, adults and their minor children automatically lost their Canadian citizenship when the adults became citizens of another country. However, the amended act made no provision to restore Canadian nationality for those who were born in Canada, except through the lengthy migration process.

This has not changed for adults in two later revisions of the law, while the latest amendment does restore citizenship for the minor children. Evidently, the minors were considered a human-rights issue. Not so for the adults, in spite of Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which states, " No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality ..." .

While the many and various legal tangles and disappointments continue, I hope that 'better will be sooner than later'.

I am, etc.,

DONALD DUFF

Kingston 8