41. (1) The seat of a member of either House shall become vacant –
a. upon the next dissolution of Parliament after he has been appointed or elected;

41. (1) No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the House of Representatives who-
. is a member of the Senate;
a. is disqualified for election by any law for the time being in force in Jamaica by reason of his holding, or acting in, any office the functions of which involve any responsibility for, or in connection with, the conduct of any election, or any responsibility for the compilation or revision of any electoral register.
(2) No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator or elected as a member of the House of Representatives who-
b. is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or State;

There is no need to prolong this. The simple point is whether the Constitution should be amended to allow persons who as adults acknowledge a second non-Commonwealth nationality.

39. Subject to the provisions of section 40 of this Constitution, any person, who at the date of his appointment or nomination for election-
a. a Commonwealth citizen of the age of twenty-one years or upwards; and
b. has been ordinarily resident in Jamaica for the immediately preceding twelve months, shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator or elected as a member of the House of Representatives and no other person shall be so qualified.

From Section 39, Vaz was without a doubt qualified to “run” for office. Therefore, Danville Walker did his job correctly by properly certifying Vaz and all other applicants in question, as being properly qualified to run for office. However, Section 40, subsection 2, brings in to contradiction the prior sections by stating that a duly elected candidate cannot “hold” office if they are a non-commonwealth dual national.

Going further back to Section 38, the “right to vote” is “tied” to the “right to run” for office, to the extent the Section 38, subsection 2 firmly states that

(2) No election of a member of the House of Representatives shall be called in question on the ground that the law under which that election was conducted was inconsistent with this section.

Therefore, Vaz COULD NOT be disqualified from running, but by vague construction, is barred from sitting in Parliament. What if Vaz was a multi-national, that is born in Britain to Jamaican parents prior to 1962, who became US citizens before he was 18 year old who subsequently added him on their US passport, but he lived with his Jamaica grandparents in JA until adulthood then served his nation for over 20 years?

In this scenario, the constitution trice states he is a declared citizen, but by vague construction, we would deny him his natural right to participate in his government in one instance, having affirmed his right to vote for said government in yet another instance. This is equivalent to attaining a JA driver’s license, then buying a car, but be told you cannot drive your car even though you did not commit a crime or road offence, because it is was manufactured in the US even though it is a British model (e.g., Jaguar).

When a subsection or action contradicts an “entrenched” provision such as that which is declared in Sections 34 to 39, it is in of itself un-constitutional and must be corrected to avoid diminishing or contravening citizens’ rights. This is my core argument, aimed at stimulating critical thinking, which is essential for positive change. We “must” never be afraid to CHALLENGE the Justice’s decisions – they are not gods and they are as imperfect we all are. In a democracy we are all equals, so Power to the People.

Invariably, the Justices disrespected the people of JA by not releasing their legal arguments. They covered their rears but the power was always in the hands of the PM to call a by-election. The Gleaner’s Editor has been consistent in pointing out this error. The Justices’ analysis is a matter of public record – we need true transparency.

The ruling would also mean that today’s Gleaner article stating the PM will give a voice in Parliament to the Diaspora is a grand fantasy unless the Legislature moves to fix the blatant contradictions that got us into this mess in the first place. However, too many public deals are brokered in private – we need government in the sunshine.

Let me take this legal nexus argument a little bit further, should the US or another country invade and/or occupy JA, they could use our ill-constructed constitution to appoint hostile non-Jamaicans to our Parliament. What then would be our remedy? Consider the Grenada invasion where the US exploited constitutional weaknesses!