Mon | May 22, 2017

Of what validity was Clarke-, Reid-influenced voting?

Published:Saturday | February 14, 2015 | 2:00 AM


We have spent a fair bit of time ruminating on the personalities in the Jamaica Labour Party Senate debacle. I would like to ask two questions about the legal principles surrounding this situation.

The first is, how can it be a sensible way to run any organisation that a leader can appoint individuals but cannot relieve them of their posts? Whether his reason be just or not is always a matter of opinion (whether legal or not).

But surely there MUST be a mechanism to remove senators from the position if they do not feel it necessary to themselves resign. How is this best accomplished? (And by the way, this is not a partisan issue: The fact that the PNP has not had this situation occur in the past does not mean that it never will.)

The second issue concerns the laws that Messrs Reid and Clarke participated in enacting. If their appointments are null and void, what does this say of the laws they helped pass? I suppose any law passed where there were more than two votes in favour would have passed anyway, even if Tufton and Williams would have opposed.

But what of laws that

passed with a simple majority? What of laws that had direct suggestions/wording from Clarke/Reid? I would be interested in hearing someone of sound legal standing comment on the above.



Ontario, Canada