The PM's referenda error
Published: Thursday | May 28, 2009
The Editor, Sir:
It is difficult to disagree with the thrust of your editorial of Tuesday, May 26, 2009: 'Imperative of debate on dual citizenship'. Allow me, however, to comment on one matter.
You say that the Opposition People's National Party "has a point - that there are other outstanding constitutional issues to be dealt with and ought to be dealt with. But this one, we feel, is a priority."
One could hardly doubt that this issue is indeed a priority. However, as your editorial correctly states, any change to the constitutional provision governing qualification to sit in the Parliament requires approval by the people of Jamaica in a referendum.
I ask the question, therefore: How could this issue be the subject of discussion by the two political parties without a contemplation of the other substantially agreed proposals for reform and, in particular, those that can only be changed by means of a referendum?
Took PNP to task
I ask this question because, last Thursday, the prime minister, at a press conference to announce the date for the by-election in North East St Catherine, sought to take the PNP and its leader to task for insisting on all the issues being considered together, when some of the other reform matters "required referenda" for any change to be made.
He has publicly stated, more than once, that the provision governing qualification can be changed by the affirmative vote of all the Government members of Parliament. He must obviously have still been labouring under that mistaken impression last Thursday, for the clear inference to be drawn from his statement was that there is no need for any other type of vote, much less the requirement of a referendum.
The opposition leader has already pointed out this requirement to the prime minister. Now that your editorial has done so once again, perhaps he has now grasped the reason why the PNP is insisting that all the issues must be discussed together. After all, financial considerations would dictate that such discussions must contemplate whether one referendum would suffice for the agreed changes to be made.
I am, etc.,
A.J. NICHOLSON
Opposition Spokesman on
Justice
A.J. got it wrong
Published: Friday | May 29, 2009
( L - R ) Golding, Nicholson
The Editor, Sir:
A.J. Nicholson, QC, continues to insist that I erred in suggesting that the dual-citizenship dilemma could be dealt with by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. His contention is based on the fact that Section 39 of the Constitution is deeply entrenched and any amendment thereto would have to be approved by a vote of the electorate. That much is correct.
However, section 39 deals only with the qualification for membership in Parliament, and all it says is that a person must be a Commonwealth citizen (which, by virtue of Section 9, includes Jamaican citizenship) and must have been ordinarily resident in Jamaica for a minimum of 12 months immediately preceding nomination. As far as I know, all 60 current members of parliament satisfy that requirement and, therefore, no question of eligibility arises on that count.
Basis of disqualification
It is Section 40 which prescribes the basis of disqualification for election to Parliament and constitutes the grounds on which the court ruled in the cases of Daryl Vaz and Gregory Mair. Section 40 is not deeply entrenched and could be amended by a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament.
The question that would have to be addressed is what would be an appropriate amendment. That is where the argument would arise, not on the question of whether Parliament has the competence to amend Section 40.
I am, etc.,
BRUCE GOLDING
Prime Minister
Published: Thursday | May 28, 2009
The Editor, Sir:
It is difficult to disagree with the thrust of your editorial of Tuesday, May 26, 2009: 'Imperative of debate on dual citizenship'. Allow me, however, to comment on one matter.
You say that the Opposition People's National Party "has a point - that there are other outstanding constitutional issues to be dealt with and ought to be dealt with. But this one, we feel, is a priority."
One could hardly doubt that this issue is indeed a priority. However, as your editorial correctly states, any change to the constitutional provision governing qualification to sit in the Parliament requires approval by the people of Jamaica in a referendum.
I ask the question, therefore: How could this issue be the subject of discussion by the two political parties without a contemplation of the other substantially agreed proposals for reform and, in particular, those that can only be changed by means of a referendum?
Took PNP to task
I ask this question because, last Thursday, the prime minister, at a press conference to announce the date for the by-election in North East St Catherine, sought to take the PNP and its leader to task for insisting on all the issues being considered together, when some of the other reform matters "required referenda" for any change to be made.
He has publicly stated, more than once, that the provision governing qualification can be changed by the affirmative vote of all the Government members of Parliament. He must obviously have still been labouring under that mistaken impression last Thursday, for the clear inference to be drawn from his statement was that there is no need for any other type of vote, much less the requirement of a referendum.
The opposition leader has already pointed out this requirement to the prime minister. Now that your editorial has done so once again, perhaps he has now grasped the reason why the PNP is insisting that all the issues must be discussed together. After all, financial considerations would dictate that such discussions must contemplate whether one referendum would suffice for the agreed changes to be made.
I am, etc.,
A.J. NICHOLSON
Opposition Spokesman on
Justice
A.J. got it wrong
Published: Friday | May 29, 2009
( L - R ) Golding, Nicholson
The Editor, Sir:
A.J. Nicholson, QC, continues to insist that I erred in suggesting that the dual-citizenship dilemma could be dealt with by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. His contention is based on the fact that Section 39 of the Constitution is deeply entrenched and any amendment thereto would have to be approved by a vote of the electorate. That much is correct.
However, section 39 deals only with the qualification for membership in Parliament, and all it says is that a person must be a Commonwealth citizen (which, by virtue of Section 9, includes Jamaican citizenship) and must have been ordinarily resident in Jamaica for a minimum of 12 months immediately preceding nomination. As far as I know, all 60 current members of parliament satisfy that requirement and, therefore, no question of eligibility arises on that count.
Basis of disqualification
It is Section 40 which prescribes the basis of disqualification for election to Parliament and constitutes the grounds on which the court ruled in the cases of Daryl Vaz and Gregory Mair. Section 40 is not deeply entrenched and could be amended by a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament.
The question that would have to be addressed is what would be an appropriate amendment. That is where the argument would arise, not on the question of whether Parliament has the competence to amend Section 40.
I am, etc.,
BRUCE GOLDING
Prime Minister
Comment