Continuing from our previous conversations on …
Any citizen has the right to hold dual citizenship. But based on my findings here are some observations:
26. (1) Disqualification for Representatives and senators
(hereinafter in this section referred to as a member) if he:-
(a) is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state;
It is more than a presumption outright that once a person is …
“under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state…” that he/she has applied for and will normally obtain (by or through his/her act) a passport during this segment of the application process. Upon receipt of that passport, the individual would be in possession of two passports and effectively hold dual citizenship. He can renew that passport and or travel on it and so on.
My research informs me that when it comes to an individual’s right to hold two such passports even before nomination day with the intent to seek representative office and or holding an elected office in the House of Assembly this is cause for his/her disqualification. Again, may I remind us that the process for disqualification is outlined in the constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines as well as the Representation of the People Act.
Let us assume that a person was born in another country and his/her parents can obtain a passport for them in that country, from this foreign state while they were still a minor of course. Thereafter, the presumption arises though, as to whether that person on becoming an adult, if they renewed that passport, whether they would now participate in an act of their own free will, voluntarily that amounts to triggering the interpretation of, “any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state,” should they wish to participate in the electoral process. It could very well be so and if in doubt, the court could guide us all on this. You see, when the child was a child, he/she had no awareness of what was happening to him/her since he/she did not ask to be born in that foreign state. He/she could not be considered under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state as a child, and neither by virtue of his own act. As an adult, yes, he/she can!
Let us repeat for emphasis. When one engages in an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state, that individual must do so with full awareness. So, by virtue of his own act he/she having reached the age of ‘maturity’, with full capacity and capability to vote, knowingly, he/she would have participated in an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign state or power. There may be subjectivity on interpretation and that is acceptable within this context. Also, on the other hand, one could argue that if a person was born in a foreign state, the individual cannot give up his “birthright” to citizenship since he could not confer such citizenship on himself.
If on the reading of the spirit of the law, the framers of the constitution could have looked beyond this singular interpretation, so that a minor is not expected to remain a minor but upon maturing to the adult stage; with every likelihood that he/she may wish to exercise his/her right to vote; both the status of the individual and his relationship to the voting process/electoral law, also changes. For additional reading a case of Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347 provides much ‘food’ for thought.
It is the possession of a foreign passport that was the only evidence to prove the basis of an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state. Mind you in the aforementioned case other considerations on nationality and other matters were also raised. Now, the allegiance of such persons to a foreign state is derived from his/her nationality and the passport was enough evidence that nationality was merely incidental. If one applied for the passport, the mere act would not add a new type of ‘allegiance’ because the allegiance already exists.
What bothers me is that a clearer understanding of this matter could have been arrived at, many years ago, through the courts and it was not done. I wrote about this matter in 2020 and to date, I am writing again on behalf of the National Liberation Movement because it has significant constitutional weight. We are a people who understand right from wrong. Those who refused to give up their passports and held office in this country must consider whether they can continue to do so and if in doubt, seek the court’s interpretation of this matter. IN my humble opinion, we have gone on too long with a legal debate of this nature.
If a leader anywhere does not understand his role within the context of his own ‘constitutional latitude’ and the enabling provisions, it says a lot about the leader and the very system itself that permitted such a high office to be held for so long without a legal challenge on its interpretation. It is not good enough for us to just raise the issue in a debate and leave it there, hanging! We must right the wrong. It is also good for us to admit when we were wrong in our interpretations of any matter generally as to err is human. Besides this, the Attorney General who is the people’s lawyer should also have guidance on this matter for us if we don’t wish to pursue the route of going straight to court.
Briefly, the Attorney General is the legal representative of the state and also has the responsibility that includes and is not limited to protecting the public’s interests. He/she is there to advocate for the legal rights of residents and so on within our small island developing state.
Besides that he can represent the public in all legal matters and if needs be, bring lawsuits to protect our interests. It is in the public’s interests that we need clarification on the constitutional latitude of elected members who hold two passports or dual citizenship. Indeed the Attorney General serves as legal advisor to agencies within our state and to government officials.
The major question now is whether the Attorney General would advise government officials who hold dual citizenship on such constitutional provisions as to their disqualification as members of the House of Assembly. If done properly, if the procedure is correctly followed, vacancies will be the inevitable outcome, some members may be fined and or imprisoned and barred from becoming area representatives for years to come and general elections could be held sooner rather than later. It is this serious!! We must do things right and in keeping with the constitution which is the supreme law of our land. Otherwise, what is the point of having a constitution! If you don’t believe me, then let’s go to court or seek the advice of the Attorney General.
A message from the National Liberation Movement of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
