THE EDITOR, Sir:

I HAVE looked at the image of 'justice' with her blindfold and scales. I have often wondered if she were blind, blindfolded or simply blinkered. Most of us should remember the famous or infamous Florida case.

The ruling in the Dabdoub/Vaz case upheld the eligibility principle. It also established a precedent that the ruling in the Azan/Stern case followed.

The above cases provide 'teachable moments', learning opportunities, a chance to look closely at our Constitution and our situation as an independent nation.

Some questions come to mind. In the Vaz case, could the ruling have been appealed? Can the Stern case be appealed? If the answer is 'yes', would all the lawyers and their staff have to pay visa costs and, hopefully, get visas, travel 5,000 miles at considerable cost in order to get 'relief' from our erstwhile colonial masters/mistresses? Is this true nationhood and independence? Can justice in this case be 'blind'?

Prostituting ourselves?

With respect to Commonwealth citizens being able to vote and hold elected offices in Jamaica, can some learned lawyer tell the Jamaican people if this convention is reciprocal? If the convention is not reciprocal, are we not prostituting ourselves?

Individuals are not always responsible, nor are they always honest. How can it be determined in advance if a candidate meets all the requirements of eligibility? If one or more persons succeed in hiding his/her ineligibility and get elected, will there be future by-elections?

Will the powers that be hasten to review the Constitution and add clear clauses and compelling consequences to prevent a recurrence of the above referred circumstances?

Jamaica needs real independence, not independence with strings attached to the back of colonial masters'/mistresses' aprons.

Above all, Jamaica needs honesty so that we can look in the mirror and feel proud of what we see.

I am, etc.,

Louis Alexander Hemans

lahemans@aol.com

Maryland, USA