Dear Editor
I wish to enjoin the discussion, even debate, on the dual citizenship issue that has evolved from Charrandass Persaud’s vote to support the Opposition’s no-confidence vote against the Coalition, last December. My focus is on the learned Ralph Ramkarran’s article, “A dual citizen can be a member of the National Assembly,” (SN, January 20, 2019).
Article 155 (1) (a) expressly states, “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.”
A simple deconstruction of this article will be understood by any person with a modicum of basic commonsense to mean an MP cannot be a dual citizen. National pledges and oaths are usually administered to persons being sworn in as naturalized citizens in foreign countries. This means a dual citizenship holder may have pledged allegiance to a ‘foreign power’, thereby disqualifying such a person from becoming an MP in Guyana.
That the National Assembly unanimously approved the 2000 constitutional reform, which included Article 155 (1) (a), meant that those voting members believed every single article in the constitution had become the enforceable law of the land. Yet, for the ensuing 19 years, some members of the National Assembly sat in violation of Article 155 (1) (a) in the highest decision-making forum of the land.
Laws, including Budgets, were passed by MPs who were in violation of Article 155 (1) (a) and should not have been sitting in Parliament. There is now debate as to whether those laws can be retroactively repealed, and what might be the ensuing consequences.
Editor, while I understand the rationale for presidential term limits being introduced as part of the 2000 constitutional reform, I have no idea what triggered the decision by the authors of the 2000 constitutional reform to proceed with Article 155 (1) (a), knowing at the time that, at least, one ranking PPP held dual citizenship and was a sitting member of the National Assembly at the time.
Guyana’s parliamentary system pretty much mirrors that of Western nations, but especially Britain. The two-term limit component was introduced to prevent the President-For-Life concept Forbes Burnham fostered and to also mirror that of the United States of America. But even as efforts were made, through the court system, to overturn the presidential term limit law, it boggles the mind that not one single PPP or PNC MP with dual citizenship ever thought about introducing legislation to remove Article 155 (1) (a).
Prior to the brouhaha caused by Persaud’s vote, I had zero interest in this matter, but now understand that while nothing is inherently wrong with persons with dual citizenship sitting as lawmakers, some countries have no law on the matter while others do have laws forbidding lawmakers from holding dual citizenship.
As of June 2018, there were 89 Senators and House Representatives with dual citizenship in the US Congress. As of December 2018, there were 22 Canadian parliamentarians with dual (even triple) citizenship. In Britain, an MP can hold dual citizenship providing they are citizen from a Commonwealth country (like Guyana).
However, in 2017, it was reported in Australia that some elected parliamentarians with dual citizenship created a crisis moment for the government, when several of them were declared by the court system to be ineligible for office because of dual citizenship, in violation of Section 44 of that country’s century-old constitution.
The Australian Court ruled any person in Australia deemed to have an allegiance to a “foreign power” was disqualified from holding office in federal parliament. In fact, some British MPs wondered aloud why Australia still has a ban on dual citizenship.
But that allegiance to a “foreign power” reference is what many Guyanese don’t understand that the pledger agrees to when being sworn in as a naturalized citizen in a foreign country. And that is why Article 155 (1) (a) should have been adhered to by our MPs since 2000 by relinquishing their dual citizenship or, since both the PPP and PNC had MPs with dual citizenship, then simply vote by a two-thirds majority to get rid of Article 155 (1) (a).
Unfortunately, given that Charrandass Persaud voted to bring down the Coalition Government and then fled to Canada, where he is a citizen, I think Guyana needs to both keep and strictly enforce this article. It is not fair or right for an MP to vote to bring down a government and then flee to another country where s/he is a citizen and not stay to help fight to correct what s/he as the real or perceived wrongs that triggered support for the no-confidence vote.
The Integrity Commission should not only be tasked with requesting, under penalty of law, that certain officials turn over financial statements showing assets and wealth, but be also tasked with requiring all MPs to submit sworn statements that they are not dual citizens. Anyone who accepts an appointment to a position that requires a declaration of assets (local and foreign) should be told they have 90 days to declare their assets, failing which the law will forfeit their appointment.
I close by hoping Ralph Ramkarran can deliver with his new party (ANUG) on constitutional reform and war on government corruption, but if he understands Article 1551 (1) (a) in its proper contextual interpretation and application, and still genuinely believes a person with dual citizenship can be a member of the National Assembly, he needs to come clearer on the purpose of a constitution with all its articles and clauses.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
