Dear Editor,
In his letter published in the Stabroek News of January 15, 2019, Mr. Lincoln Lewis accuses former Attorney General Mr. Anil Nandlall of “being deceptive in his claim that the extant article was probably there since independence and all political parties are in violation, which gives the impression that this violation has been happening for more than 50 years.” In Mr. Lewis’ typically emphatic style, he describes Nandlall’s claim as “Not true” and makes his own claim that “The constitutional requirement came into effect in 2000.”
It is unusual for Mr. Lewis to get his facts wrong but on this occasion he does and I believe this is due to the side note to Article 155 in the current version of the 1980 Constitution which refers simply to Act 14 of 2000. In fact, the question of qualification and disqualification for election as members of the (Guyana) National Assembly was addressed in Articles 59 and 60 respectively of the 1966 Independence Constitution. Under the said Article 59 a Commonwealth citizen was so qualified but such a person was disqualified under Article 60 if that person was, “by his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”. The 1980 Constitution had similar provisions with the important distinction that “Commonwealth citizen” was replaced by “citizen of Guyana” as a qualification for election to the National Assembly (Article 53). The disqualification condition was however framed in identical terms (Article 155) as its predecessor.
In other words, both the qualification and the disqualification provisions were there long before the post-Herdmanston reforms of the late 1990’s and have remained intact despite the extensive review undertaken by the Constitution Reform Commission. There were several submissions to that process but none – including those by the PPP and the PNC – sought any amendment to the disqualification proscription.
I should also point out that Professor Harold Lutchman, the Leader of the APNU+AFC List for the 2015 elections served as an expert to the CRC and must have been aware that his List was contaminated by persons in open violation of Article 155. Prof. Lutchman has disclaimed any responsibility for the constitutionality of the List submitted in his name.
In any case, as Mr. Lewis points out in his letter, one good that will come from the Court challenge to the vote by MP Charrandass Persaud, is that Guyana will finally have to confront the proscription, as have so many countries across the Caribbean and the Commonwealth. It seems to me that a large diasporal population is no reason, or excuse, for undermining what Lewis describes as legislative patriotism. Indeed, the wisdom of the provision was manifest in the actions by Mr. Persaud that very evening – he used his Guyana citizenship to vote in the National Assembly and, a few hours later, used his Canadian citizenship to obtain protection to leave Guyana.
I am adamantly opposed to tinkering with Article 155 not only for the reason so forcefully brought home by Mr. Persaud’s yes vote but because I find it abhorrent that persons can make laws the effect of which they can avoid by simply hopping on an airplane and leaving Guyana. It is unacceptable that they can impose laws on Guyanese while giving themselves the option of avoiding those very laws.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
