EDITORIAL - A constitutional absurdity

THE JAMAICA Labour Party's (JLP) Shahine Robinson was, in Monday's by-election, returned as the parliamentary representative for the constituency of North East St Ann, although Mr Devon Evans of the little-known Marcus Garvey People's Progressive Party received a surprising 20 per cent of the votes.

Mr Evans would clearly have benefited from the absence of the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) from the election, although Monday's vote was a result of its proxy challenge of Mrs Robinson's qualification for membership of the legislature.

While the result will be analysed for any swing against the JLP and what this portends for a general election in two years' time, the more immediate significance of the election is the focus it renews on the matter of who is qualified to sit in Jamaica's legislature and the urgent need for a debate and consensus on this matter.

Contrary to constitution

Indeed, Mrs Robinson was the fourth JLP member of parliament to have been thrown out of the House of Representatives and forced to again face the polls since the general election of 2007. They were all citizens of foreign countries at the time they were nominated for the general election and, therefore, by their own act, were contrary to Section 40 of the Constitution - "acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state".

Two members of the PNP now face similar challenges, including Sharon Hay-Webster, who appears not to be discomfited by her occupation of her House seat despite her party's ostensible moral campaign to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution, or her admittance of being born in the United States and holding a US passport. Forget about morality, Mrs Hay-Webster seems to insist, because her case is legally different from the rest.

However revoltingly putrid Mrs Hay-Webster's position may, on the face of it, appear to be, there is, indeed, a larger question worthy of consideration.

Is it right?

That is: should it be right, as is now permitted by the Constitution, for a citizen of a Commonwealth country, having resided in Jamaica for a year, to be allowed membership of the legislature when a Jamaican with dual citizenship is not?

That, on the face of it, is neither fair nor practical, especially in today's circumstance when perhaps as many Jamaicans who live at home live abroad, and are concerned and participate in the country's welfare. Such limitation weakens the construct of a Greater Jamaica, a country that includes all those who live in the diaspora.

The absurdity of the current arrangement, drafted half a century ago, is rudely revealed when it is noted that a Jamaican who has residency status in the United States could not serve in the House or Senate. Yet, an Australian or a Pakistani who fulfilled the 12-month residency obligation could.

Maybe the prime minister ought to face such a test of citizenship and allegiance, but the rest demands, at the very least, robust constitutional review.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.