In a recent radio appearance, Senator Jemalie John attempted to perform a masterclass in political wordplay, trying to convince the public that a convenient last-minute legislative amendment has nothing to do with saving his party’s parliamentary seats.
While the Senator spoke to the government’s move as a simple “clarification” of “ambiguity,” a closer look at his statements suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by redefining common terms and possible undermining a judicial process.
The central part of Senator John’s argument rests on the claim that the Constitution is “ambiguous” regarding whether citizens of Commonwealth countries are considered to be under a “foreign power”. He argued that while some believe any country outside of one’s own is a foreign power, the government’s new definition would specifically exclude Commonwealth nations.
By doing this, the Senator is attempting to play with the very definition of sovereignty. He suggests that a person can swear allegiance to another country provided it is in the Commonwealth and still not be considered under the influence of a “foreign power”. This linguistic trick allows the government to bypass the common-sense understanding that a foreign citizen is, by definition, a citizen of a foreign state.
Perhaps the most deceptive moment of the interview was Senator John’s flat denial that this amendment is targeted at the opposition’s ongoing court case against two government representatives. When asked directly if the law was a “self-serving” mechanism to resolve the current predicament, he replied, “No, I would not say so”.
However, in the very same breath, he admitted the amendment is necessary because “if there was not an ambiguity, we would not have this case before the court right now”. To claim a law is not “about the case” while simultaneously stating the law is being passed specifically to resolve the legal question at the heart of that case is a blatant contradiction.
The Senator further attempted to distract from the constitutional requirements of office by framing the legal challenge as an attack on democracy. He characterized the opposition’s efforts to uphold citizenship laws as an attempt to “impose” losers on the people and “disregard” thousands of votes.
This is a classic “playing with words” tactic:
The Reality: The Constitution sets eligibility criteria for candidates.
The Senator’s Spin: Enforcing those criteria is “ethically and morally… wrong”.
By calling the protection of his party’s seats “protecting the democratic franchise,” the Senator is attempting to make the public believe that following the law is somehow an undemocratic act.
Finally, Senator John dismissed the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law, stating, “We don’t leave judges to make those determinations for us”. He argued that Parliament, as the “law making body,” should be the one to “clarify” what the Constitution means.
This rhetoric ignores the fundamental principle of the separation of powers. By “clarifying” a definition while a court is actively deliberating on that very definition, the government is essentially trying to write its own victory into the law books before the judges can reach a verdict.
Senator John’s interview was a masterclass in using “clarification” as a cloak for “intervention,” and “democracy” as a shield for “partisanship.” The public would be wise to look past the wordplay.