I’m raising the dual citizenship issue of MPs again

Dear Editor,
My colleagues have reminded me of my letter in your publication of 25th December, 2011 instant, imploring obedience to the law disqualifying persons with dual citizenship from sitting in the National Assembly.
This law is Article 155 (1) of the Constitution which says “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.” Having said to them I think I did my part and hope the political leaders will do theirs’, I am reminded this is not enough until an answer is received or corrective action taken. So here I go again and hope this time the politicians hear and give answers or execute actions.
The disqualification law is similar to the law forbidding a naturalised Guyanese from running for the presidency and stipulating the period of absence from the country to be eligible to run for office.  The positions of President and Member of Parliament are the two highest political offices. I attended some of the 1998-2000 Constitutional Reform meetings and heard the reasons for having these included were to avoid persons holding office who are not fully committed to the country or jumping ship when the going gets tough. The feeling was you cannot serve two masters at the same time. The presenters and attendees cited examples of this practice in other countries in making the case to follow trend.
There is growing disgruntlement by the man in the street about the number of persons sitting in the National Assembly in breach of the law and being allowed to get away with it. It is said this is happening in all three parties. In the APNU it is said Dr. Rupert Roopnarine and Attorney-at-Law Joseph Harmon hold dual citizenship. In the PPP they are Minister Leslie Ramsammy and Adviser Gail Teixeira and in the AFC, Dr. Veersammy Ramayaa. The named public officials should come out and clear their names with proof. If they don’t then the Party Leaders should. The disillusioned have resigned themselves to a fate that things will get worse because this corps of politicians are birds of a feather.
My colleagues are convinced we are witnessing the death of public service and political decency. They think public servants no longer serve the public, are arrogant and a law unto themselves. A recent Frankly Speaking column became a reference of this being a badly kept secret.
The columnist in his writing supplied a definition for Honourable, hinting that the Honourable in the Members of the National Assembly has waned.  There is genuine concern about the growing absence of integrity which was a prerequisite for public service in the not too distant past.
Honour was worn with pride because it meant everything, whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated, lived in the rural areas or the towns. Persons stepped aside until their names were cleared or provided proof in defence of their name. The pessimists rejoin that the accused are from our generation.
Mr.  Editor, the bone of contention here is the law and all being subject to it but some thinking they aren’t. The point is not if the law is outmoded, is that it exists; the MPs took an Oath to uphold the Constitution and should respect the law because it is on the book. Our sister Caribbean countries had to deal with similar matter. It was handled and the accused made answerable. With public outcry and the help of the media the accused and enablers no longer ignored the people. There is a feeling the same can be done here.  So, Mr. Editor, I beg your indulgence to once again raise this matter. I sincerely hope this time the MPs and Party Leaders take the time to respond or you use your goodly publication to have them do.
Mr. Humphrey Charles