Parliament should be guided by court ruling on dual citizenship

Parliament should be guided by court ruling on dual citizenship – Former Speaker

Apr 02, 2019 News

Former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran, believes that Parliament should be guided by the court’s ruling on the matter of dual citizenship.
In an invited comment on the issue, the Senior Counsel alluded to the ruling of the Chief Justice in which she said in her decision on January 31 that “if you have dual citizenship, you are in breach of Article 155” of Guyana’s constitution, but under Article 156 (1)(b), “you have a discretion to vacate the office, but she also adds that if anyone is going to challenge the validity of the member to remain in the House, they could only do that by way of an Election Petition.”
Ramkarran noted that an Election Petition is filed 28 days following the elections.
“So therefore, the time has passed for the filing of such a petition.”

Former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran

Ramkarran’s comments come days after the Appeal Court upheld the Chief Justice’s decision on the issue of dual citizenship. Both the government and opposition side of the House have since expressed differing views on the subject.
Government spokesman and Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, has said that the ruling Coalition would not be removing its dual citizenship Members of Parliament (MPs) yet, and they will all be present in the National Assembly at its next sitting on April 11.
The Opposition People’s Progressive Party has said it would not be attending sittings of the National Assembly until the Caribbean Court of Justice – Guyana highest Appeal Court – rules on the matter. Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday clarified that although those holding dual citizenship in his party will stay away from the House sitting, they will not resign.
However, it is Government’s stance on the issue that has been questioned.
Outspoken Attorney-at-law and Political Commentator, Christopher Ram has, among other things, called the move by the ruling party “disgraceful, unbelievable (and) contemptuous.”
The attorney believes that it is the Speaker of the National Assembly who has ultimate power in the Public Buildings, and the related Ministers are demonstrating gross disrespect towards him by pushing the Constitution aside.
Ram said that it shows (utter) contempt and disregard for the Constitution by people of the stature of Carl Greenidge (Foreign Affairs Minister); (so) it’s hard to say how much lower we as a country can get,”
“They have committed a criminal offence, because to swear to an oath falsely is a criminal offence, and this is something maybe the Commissioner of Police (Leslie James) ought to be looking into,” Ram declared.
He noted that Article 155 (1) of the Constitution of Guyana states: “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who (a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.
Following the court ruling in February, Attorneys-at-law, Anil Nandlall and Sanjeev Datadin, both of whom argued the case filed against expelled Alliance For Change (AFC) parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud, told the media of consequential effects such a decision can have on other Members of the National Assembly. Both lawyers noted that the future of MPs holding dual citizenship may be uncertain.
Nandlall pointed out that in a scenario where the life of the Parliament should be extended, the decision can have dire effects for persons in that peculiar position.
“Let us assume that we have to extend the life of parliament, for whatever reason, because these ruling persons who are in that peculiar circumstance should not be sitting in the Parliaments. And this has nothing to do with elections. Of course, at an election, leaders of the lists must henceforth have to ensure persons placed on those lists comply with the constitutional provisions as it relates to dual citizenship.”
The court ruling is based on questions posed by Compton Reid, a private citizen, who challenged the no-confidence motion against the Government on the grounds that Charrandass Persaud, who voted with the Opposition, has Canadian citizenship— by virtue of his own actions.